Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 1988 Sep;78(9):1170-4.
doi: 10.2105/ajph.78.9.1170.

Association of electronic fetal monitoring during labor with cesarean section rate and with neonatal morbidity and mortality

Affiliations

Association of electronic fetal monitoring during labor with cesarean section rate and with neonatal morbidity and mortality

J McCusker et al. Am J Public Health. 1988 Sep.

Abstract

Data from the 1980 National Natality Survey by the National Center for Health Statistics were used to assess the relation of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) during labor with cesarean section rates and neonatal morbidity and mortality. In univariate analyses, EFM was associated with higher cesarean section rates, lower five-minute Apgar scores, and a higher rate of respiratory distress. Logistic regression analysis controlling for other risk factors for poor neonatal outcome indicated that the association of EFM with higher cesarean section rates persisted (odds ratio 1.45, 95% CI 1.16, 1.81), except in certain pregnancies at very high risk for cesarean section. EFM was associated with an Apgar score less than 6 at five minutes only if delivery was by cesarean section. EFM was not found to be independently associated with respiratory distress. Neither univariate nor multivariate analyses found an association of EFM with neonatal mortality. These results suggest that EFM may identify hypoxic infants, who are frequently delivered by cesarean section. The lack of association of EFM with beneficial neonatal outcomes is consistent either with lack of effect of EFM or with uncontrolled selection bias.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. N Engl J Med. 1986 Sep 4;315(10):615-9 - PubMed
    1. Am J Epidemiol. 1985 May;121(5):651-63 - PubMed
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1971 Nov;111(6):826-32 - PubMed
    1. JAMA. 1972 Mar 6;219(10):1322-5 - PubMed
    1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1974 Feb 15;118(4):529-33 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources