 |
|
Electronic Fetal Monitoring
Council on Scientific Affairs
JAMA. 1981;246(20):2370-2373.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings. |
|
|
|
DURING the past two decades, there has been a substantial decrease in perinatal mortality. There has also been a concomitant increase in the use of technology in monitoring of pregnancies, as indicated by the use of continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) during labor in as many as 60% to 70% of pregnancies.1,2
This trend in the increasing use of EFM has been associated with opposing societal forces that include (1) an increased emphasis on the "natural" birthing process in which any intervention is viewed with concern; (2) a greater demand for demonstrating efficacy of common practices as well as new technologies; and (3) a greater emphasis on cost-benefit and cost-risk analysis.
Challenging the use of EFM most dramatically was a report by Banta and Thacker3 that was given unusually wide play in the lay press. This study related the increase in cesarean section rates to the greater use
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
Author Affiliations
From the Council on Scientific Affairs, Division of Scientific Activities, American Medical Association, Chicago.
Footnotes
This report is not intended to serve as a standard of medical care. Standards of medical care that are determined locally and are constantly subject to change are established on the basis of all the several facts of the individual case. Reprint requests to the Division of Scientific Activities, Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association, 535 N Dearborn St, Chicago, IL 60610 (Richard J. Jones, MD).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
|
