title: Internal versus external tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labour.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Uterine contractions can be registered by external tocodynamometry (ET) or, after rupture of the membranes, by internal tocodynamometry (IT). Monitoring of the frequency of contractions is important especially when intravenous oxytocin is used as excessive uterine activity (hyperstimulation or tachysystole) can cause fetal distress. During induction of labour as well as during augmentation with intravenous oxytocin, some clinicians choose to monitor frequency and strength of contractions with IT rather than with ET as an intrauterine pressure catheter measures intrauterine activity more accurately than an extra-abdominal tocodynamometry device. However, insertion of an intrauterine catheter has higher costs and also potential risks for mother and child.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess the effectiveness of IT compared with using ET when intravenous oxytocin is used for induction or augmentation of labour.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2013) and PubMed (1966 to 6 April 2013).
  
  
  METHODS
  We included all published randomised controlled trials with data from women in whom IT was compared with ET in induced or augmented labour with oxytocin. We excluded trials that employed quasi-randomised methods of treatment allocation. We found no unpublished or ongoing studies on this subject.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Three studies involving a total of 1945 women were included. Overall, risk of bias across the three trials was mixed. No serious complications were reported in the trials and no neonatal or maternal deaths occurred. The neonatal outcome was not statistically different between groups: Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.83; three studies, n = 1945); umbilical artery pH less than 7.15 (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.79; one study, n = 1456); umbilical artery pH less than 7.16 (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.92; one study, n = 239); admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.67; two studies, n = 489); and more than 48 hours hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.20; one study, n = 1456). The pooled risk for instrumental delivery (including caesarean section, ventouse and forceps extraction) was not statistically significantly different (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.21; three studies, n = 1945). Hyperstimulation was reported in two studies (n = 489), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.88).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This review found no differences between the two types of monitoring (internal or external tocodynamometry) for any of the maternal or neonatal outcomes. Given that this review is based on three studies (N = 1945 women) of moderate quality, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of one form of tocodynamometry over another for women where intravenous oxytocin was administered for induction or augmentation of labour.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1105 AZ.
authors.forename: Jannet J H
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Bakker
authors.forename: Petra F
authors.initials: PF
authors.lastname: Janssen
authors.forename: Karlijn
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: van Halem
authors.forename: Birgit Y
authors.initials: BY
authors.lastname: van der Goes
authors.forename: Dimitri N M
authors.initials: DN
authors.lastname: Papatsonis
authors.forename: Joris A M
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: van der Post
authors.forename: Ben Willem J
authors.initials: BW
authors.lastname: Mol
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007275:Injections, Intravenous; D007751:Labor, Induced / Q000379:methods*; D010120:Oxytocics / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D010121:Oxytocin / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D011247:Pregnancy; D011256:Pregnancy Outcome; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D014590:Uterine Contraction / Q000502:physiology*; D018590:Uterine Monitoring / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D010120:Oxytocics; D010121:Oxytocin
references.citation: Nature. 1983 Mar 24-30;302(5906):342-4
references.pmid: 6687626
references.citation: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Apr;25(4):415-8
references.pmid: 21649507
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Aug;76(2):164-7
references.pmid: 2196493
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Feb;115(2 Pt 2):407-408
references.pmid: 20093860
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Mar;105(3):352-6
references.pmid: 9532999
references.citation: Stat Med. 2006 Oct 30;25(20):3443-57
references.pmid: 16345038
references.citation: J Reprod Med. 2005 Aug;50(8):578-84
references.pmid: 16220762
references.citation: BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
references.pmid: 9310563
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1978 Aug;85(8):567-72
references.pmid: 687534
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1973 Jan;41(1):7-13
references.pmid: 4682619
references.citation: J Reprod Med. 1995 Dec;40(12):845-9
references.pmid: 8926614
references.citation: Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Sep;49(3):594-608
references.pmid: 16885666
references.citation: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993 May;33(2):159-61
references.pmid: 8216115
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Apr;180(4):1034-5
references.pmid: 10203677
references.citation: Reproduction. 2006 Jun;131(6):989-98
references.pmid: 16735538
references.citation: J Reprod Med. 1992 Sep;37(9):813-6
references.pmid: 1453404
references.citation: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008 Dec;21(12):880-3
references.pmid: 18989829
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989 Sep;161(3):666-9
references.pmid: 2782349
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2010 Jan 28;362(4):306-13
references.pmid: 20107216
references.citation: Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2011 Jul 27;59(7):1-28
references.pmid: 21848043
references.citation: J Perinat Med. 2008;36(3):197-201
references.pmid: 18576927
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:CD006947
references.pmid: 23235636
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(3):CD003250
references.pmid: 11687061
references.citation: Prim Care Update Ob Gyns. 1998 Jul 1;5(4):185
references.pmid: 10838348
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Aug;175(2):304-9; discussion 309-10
references.pmid: 8765246
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989 Sep;161(3):562-6; discussion 566-8
references.pmid: 2782335
references.citation: J Physiol. 1906 May 31;34(3):163-206
references.pmid: 16992821
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Dec;102(6):1445-54
references.pmid: 14662243
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Feb;198(2):e8-9
references.pmid: 18068141
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 07;(4):CD003246
references.pmid: 19821304
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992 Mar;99(3):186-9
references.pmid: 1606114
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Nov;78(5 Pt 1):800-2
references.pmid: 1923200