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
Fribourg S. Electronic Fetal Monitoring. JAMA. 1982;247(18):2499–2500. doi:10.1001/jama.1982.03320430023019
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: