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.