[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.166.74.94. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
May 14, 1982

Electronic Fetal Monitoring

Author Affiliations

Southern California Permanente Medical Group Panorama City

JAMA. 1982;247(18):2499-2500. doi:10.1001/jama.1982.03320430023019
Abstract

To the Editor.—  The report from the Council on Scientific Affairs on "Electronic Fetal Monitoring" (1981; 246:2370) may well have had temporal constraints that prevented it from citing the report by Ingemarsson et al.1 This report analyzed three time periods, one with only selected high-risk patients electronically monitored, a second with all high-risk patients so monitored, and a third with 90% of patients monitored. The conclusion was, "The improved short-term and long-term fetal outcomes seem to be largely a result of routine fetal monitoring with all its implications for obstetric and neonatal management; the significant reduction in neurological sequelae, even after correction for other changes in obstetric routines, supports this suggestion."However, the report by Mueller-Heubach et al2 revealed similar benefits for the fetus as in the previously mentioned report and also commented, "Only 15% of the overall increase in cesarean section rate was because of a greater

×