![The 2015 FIGO classification of intrapartum cardiotocography: differences to the STAN classification « Neoventa Medical The 2015 FIGO classification of intrapartum cardiotocography: differences to the STAN classification « Neoventa Medical](http://www.neoventa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/table-3.jpg)
The 2015 FIGO classification of intrapartum cardiotocography: differences to the STAN classification « Neoventa Medical
![FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography - Ayres‐de‐Campos - 2015 - International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics - Wiley Online Library FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography - Ayres‐de‐Campos - 2015 - International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics - Wiley Online Library](https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/11022b83-37b5-40c6-b93c-89ea5225df41/ijgo13-fig-0006-m.jpg)
FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography - Ayres‐de‐Campos - 2015 - International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics - Wiley Online Library
![Interobserver agreement and reliability in intrapartum cardiotocography interpretation, using the 2015 FIGO consensus guidelines | Semantic Scholar Interobserver agreement and reliability in intrapartum cardiotocography interpretation, using the 2015 FIGO consensus guidelines | Semantic Scholar](https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/68d1d5c01b470191370cd1e5e94339b4d43b57b1/3-Table1-1.png)
Interobserver agreement and reliability in intrapartum cardiotocography interpretation, using the 2015 FIGO consensus guidelines | Semantic Scholar
![Electronic intrapartum fetal monitoring: a systematic review of international clinical practice guidelines - ScienceDirect Electronic intrapartum fetal monitoring: a systematic review of international clinical practice guidelines - ScienceDirect](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S266657782100006X-gr1.jpg)
Electronic intrapartum fetal monitoring: a systematic review of international clinical practice guidelines - ScienceDirect
![Bigger is not always better… The validity of the US randomized trial of STAN for Norway « Neoventa Medical Bigger is not always better… The validity of the US randomized trial of STAN for Norway « Neoventa Medical](http://www.neoventa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/guidelines-no-fast-pa-eng.jpg)
Bigger is not always better… The validity of the US randomized trial of STAN for Norway « Neoventa Medical
![Swedish study investigates discrepancies between CTG classification systems, and the impact on ST event significance. « Neoventa Medical Swedish study investigates discrepancies between CTG classification systems, and the impact on ST event significance. « Neoventa Medical](http://www.neoventa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/table-1.jpg)
Swedish study investigates discrepancies between CTG classification systems, and the impact on ST event significance. « Neoventa Medical
![FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography - Ayres‐de‐Campos - 2015 - International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics - Wiley Online Library FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography - Ayres‐de‐Campos - 2015 - International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics - Wiley Online Library](https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/e8939501-ede8-4b13-883f-8b15cb24a086/ijgo13-fig-0002-m.jpg)
FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography - Ayres‐de‐Campos - 2015 - International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics - Wiley Online Library
![The 2015 FIGO classification of intrapartum cardiotocography: differences to the STAN classification « Neoventa Medical The 2015 FIGO classification of intrapartum cardiotocography: differences to the STAN classification « Neoventa Medical](http://www.neoventa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/table-11.jpg)
The 2015 FIGO classification of intrapartum cardiotocography: differences to the STAN classification « Neoventa Medical
A systematic review of automated pre- processing, feature extraction and classification of cardiotocography
![Introduction of the Physiological CTG Interpretation & Hypoxia in Labour (HIL) Tool, and its Incorporation into a Software Programme: Impact on Perinatal Outcome Introduction of the Physiological CTG Interpretation & Hypoxia in Labour (HIL) Tool, and its Incorporation into a Software Programme: Impact on Perinatal Outcome](https://juniperpublishers.com/gjorm/images/GJORM.MS.ID.555737.G003.png)
Introduction of the Physiological CTG Interpretation & Hypoxia in Labour (HIL) Tool, and its Incorporation into a Software Programme: Impact on Perinatal Outcome
![The 2015 FIGO classification of intrapartum cardiotocography: differences to the STAN classification « Neoventa Medical The 2015 FIGO classification of intrapartum cardiotocography: differences to the STAN classification « Neoventa Medical](http://www.neoventa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/table-4.jpg)
The 2015 FIGO classification of intrapartum cardiotocography: differences to the STAN classification « Neoventa Medical
![FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography - Ayres‐de‐Campos - 2015 - International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics - Wiley Online Library FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Cardiotocography - Ayres‐de‐Campos - 2015 - International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics - Wiley Online Library](https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/c4de1001-d16b-4b15-8dbd-2e942b16b898/ijgo13-fig-0007-m.jpg)