Conclusions
Our results suggest that participation in a training course in physiology-based interpretation of CTG could be associated with a less frequent use of second-line methods at the cost of more frequently continuing labour with the risk compromising foetal and maternal well-being. Neither this study nor the current state of the literature allows us to recommend abandoning second-line methods in favour of an enhanced CTG interpretation. The same methodology could be used on a larger scale to confirm or refute these results.