[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.163.173.253. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
April 17, 1981

Electronic Fetal Monitoring-Reply

Author Affiliations

Yale University School of Medicine New Haven, Conn

JAMA. 1981;245(15):1526. doi:10.1001/jama.1981.03310400011008

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

In Reply.—  Comments in my communication alluding to Drs Banta and Thacker relate to reports in the Washington Daily News and other media after news release of their views of EFM based on "their extensive review of the literature." Opinions I express are the result of my involvement in the development and use of EFM since its inception nearly two decades ago.The list of references submitted by Banta and Thacker contains articles (1,4,5,6) that had not yet been published when my article was written or included among 253 references cited in a report of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Consensus Conference on Antenatal Diagnosis (March 1979). Drs Banta and Thacker failed to refer to the detailed critique of their unpublished manuscript, "Costs and Benefits of EFM: A review of the literature." That article is reviewed in depth in "The Fetal Monitoring Debate" (Obstet Gynecol 1979;54:103-109).

×