Re: Are we (mis)guided by current guidelines on intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring? Case for a more physiological approach to interpretation
- PMID: 25702551
- DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13174
Re: Are we (mis)guided by current guidelines on intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring? Case for a more physiological approach to interpretation
Comment in
-
Author's reply: To PMID 24920154.BJOG. 2015 Mar;122(4):590. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13173. BJOG. 2015. PMID: 25702553 No abstract available.
Comment on
-
Are we (mis)guided by current guidelines on intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring? Case for a more physiological approach to interpretation.BJOG. 2014 Aug;121(9):1063-70. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12900. Epub 2014 Jun 12. BJOG. 2014. PMID: 24920154 Review.
Similar articles
-
Re: Are we (mis)guided by current guidelines on intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring? Case for a more physiological approach to interpretation.BJOG. 2015 Mar;122(4):588. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13269. BJOG. 2015. PMID: 25702549 No abstract available.
-
Are we (mis)guided by current guidelines on intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring? Case for a more physiological approach to interpretation.BJOG. 2014 Aug;121(9):1063-70. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12900. Epub 2014 Jun 12. BJOG. 2014. PMID: 24920154 Review.
-
Author's reply: To PMID 24920154.BJOG. 2015 Mar;122(4):590. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13173. BJOG. 2015. PMID: 25702553 No abstract available.
-
Author's reply: To PMID 24920154.BJOG. 2015 Mar;122(4):589. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13270. BJOG. 2015. PMID: 25702550 No abstract available.
-
Continuous cardiotocography during labour: Analysis, classification and management.Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016 Jan;30:33-47. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2015.03.022. Epub 2015 Jun 25. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016. PMID: 26165747 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources