Electronic fetal monitoring: the debate goes on...and on...and on

Affiliations

¹ Dr. Resnik is from the Department of Reproductive Medicine at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; e-mail: rresnik@mail.ucsd.edu.

Editorial

Robert Resnik. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 May.

. 2013 May;121(5):917-918.

doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31828c5fbe.

¹ Dr. Resnik is from the Department of Reproductive Medicine at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; e-mail: rresnik@mail.ucsd.edu.

No abstract available

Comment on

Electronic fetal monitoring in the United States: temporal trends and adverse perinatal outcomes.
Ananth CV, Chauhan SP, Chen HY, D'Alton ME, Vintzileos AM. Ananth CV, et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2013 May;121(5):927-933. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318289510d. Obstet Gynecol. 2013. PMID: 23635727

1. Gabert HA, Stenchever MA. The results of a five year study of continuous fetal monitoring on an obstetric service. Obstet Gynecol 1977;50:275–9.
1. Yeh SY, Diaz F, Paul RH. Ten year experience of intrapartum fetal monitoring in Los Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;143:496–500.
1. Nelson KB, Dambrosia JM, Ting TY, Grether JK. Uncertain value of electronic fetal monitoring in predicting cerebral palsy. N Engl J Med 1996;334:613–8.
1. Ananth CV, Chauhan SP, Chen H-Y, D’Alton ME, Vintzileos AM. Electronic fetal monitoring in the United States: temporal trends and adverse perinatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:927–33.