Electrocardiogram ST Analysis During Labor: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.OBJECTIVE
 To compare the effectiveness of cardiotocography plus ST analysis with cardiotocography alone during labor.


 We included all randomized controlled trials comparing intrapartum fetal monitoring with cardiotocography plus ST analysis with cardiotocography alone.  Compared with women who were randomized to cardiotocography, those who were randomized to ST analysis and cardiotocography had a similar incidence of perinatal composite outcome (1.5% compared with 1.6%; relative risk [RR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.10; five studies), neonatal metabolic acidosis (0.5% compared with 0.7%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54-1.02; five studies), admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (5.4% compared with 5.5%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90-1.10; six studies), perinatal death (0.1% compared with 0.1%; RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.67-4.33; six studies), neonatal encephalopathy (0.1% compared with 0.2%; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.25-1.52; six studies), cesarean delivery (13.8% compared with 14.0%; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85-1.08; six studies), and operative delivery (either cesarean or operative vaginal delivery) (23.9% compared with 25.1%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86-1.01; six studies).


 The use of ST analysis during labor as an adjunct to the standard cardiotocography does not improve perinatal outcomes or decrease cesarean delivery.
ST Analysis
To compare the effectiveness of cardiotocography plus ST analysis with cardiotocography alone during labor.


 We included all randomized controlled trials comparing intrapartum fetal monitoring with cardiotocography plus ST analysis with cardiotocography alone.  Compared with women who were randomized to cardiotocography, those who were randomized to ST analysis and cardiotocography had a similar incidence of perinatal composite outcome (1.5% compared with 1.6%; relative risk [RR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.10; five studies), neonatal metabolic acidosis (0.5% compared with 0.7%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54-1.02; five studies), admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (5.4% compared with 5.5%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90-1.10; six studies), perinatal death (0.1% compared with 0.1%; RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.67-4.33; six studies), neonatal encephalopathy (0.1% compared with 0.2%; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.25-1.52; six studies), cesarean delivery (13.8% compared with 14.0%; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85-1.08; six studies), and operative delivery (either cesarean or operative vaginal delivery) (23.9% compared with 25.1%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86-1.01; six studies).


 The use of ST analysis during labor as an adjunct to the standard cardiotocography does not improve perinatal outcomes or decrease cesarean delivery.
cardiotocography
Randomized controlled trials were identified by searching electronic databases.



electronic databases
To compare the effectiveness of cardiotocography plus ST analysis with cardiotocography alone during labor.


 We included all randomized controlled trials comparing intrapartum fetal monitoring with cardiotocography plus ST analysis with cardiotocography alone.  Compared with women who were randomized to cardiotocography, those who were randomized to ST analysis and cardiotocography had a similar incidence of perinatal composite outcome (1.5% compared with 1.6%; relative risk [RR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.10; five studies), neonatal metabolic acidosis (0.5% compared with 0.7%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54-1.02; five studies), admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (5.4% compared with 5.5%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90-1.10; six studies), perinatal death (0.1% compared with 0.1%; RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.67-4.33; six studies), neonatal encephalopathy (0.1% compared with 0.2%; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.25-1.52; six studies), cesarean delivery (13.8% compared with 14.0%; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85-1.08; six studies), and operative delivery (either cesarean or operative vaginal delivery) (23.9% compared with 25.1%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86-1.01; six studies).


 The use of ST analysis during labor as an adjunct to the standard cardiotocography does not improve perinatal outcomes or decrease cesarean delivery.
cardiotocography
Electrocardiogram ST Analysis During Labor: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.OBJECTIVE
 To compare the effectiveness of cardiotocography plus ST analysis with cardiotocography alone during labor.


 We included all randomized controlled trials comparing intrapartum fetal monitoring with cardiotocography plus ST analysis with cardiotocography alone.  Compared with women who were randomized to cardiotocography, those who were randomized to ST analysis and cardiotocography had a similar incidence of perinatal composite outcome (1.5% compared with 1.6%; relative risk [RR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.10; five studies), neonatal metabolic acidosis (0.5% compared with 0.7%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54-1.02; five studies), admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (5.4% compared with 5.5%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90-1.10; six studies), perinatal death (0.1% compared with 0.1%; RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.67-4.33; six studies), neonatal encephalopathy (0.1% compared with 0.2%; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.25-1.52; six studies), cesarean delivery (13.8% compared with 14.0%; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85-1.08; six studies), and operative delivery (either cesarean or operative vaginal delivery) (23.9% compared with 25.1%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86-1.01; six studies).


 The use of ST analysis during labor as an adjunct to the standard cardiotocography does not improve perinatal outcomes or decrease cesarean delivery.
ST analysis