Literature DB >> 3976782

Factors involved in the interpretation of fetal monitor tracings.

M Helfand, K Marton, K Ueland.   

Abstract

In order to study how physicians choose to use electronic fetal monitoring and interpret tracings, we administered a questionnaire to which 107 practicing obstetricians and 11 experts in electronic fetal monitoring responded. Sixty-one (57%) of the respondents monitored more than half of their deliveries (high users). In comparison to the less frequent users of electronic fetal monitoring (low users), they showed more positive attitudes toward electronic fetal monitoring and were nearly always more likely to perform cesarean sections on hypothetical patients described in the questionnaire. These differences appeared to be due to the high users' higher estimate of danger to the fetus. We also found that most physicians were generally more likely to perform a cesarean section on a high-risk mother than a low-risk mother with the same tracing. The majority of high and low users and nearly all of the experts, however, felt that antepartum risk factors are not of value in deciding what to do about an abnormal tracing. We conclude that there is wide variation in the way in which obstetricians use, interpret, and act on electronic fetal monitoring tracings. Some of these differences may be due to differing attitudes toward electronic fetal monitoring, differences in interpretation of electronic fetal monitoring tracings, and differences in the way obstetricians incorporate maternal risk factors into their decision-making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 3976782     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(85)90507-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  5 in total

1.  A Review of the Proceedings from the 2008 NICHD Workshop on Standardized Nomenclature for Cardiotocography: Update on Definitions, Interpretative Systems With Management Strategies, and Research Priorities in Relation to Intrapartum Electronic Fetal Monitoring.

Authors:  Barrett Robinson; Latasha Nelson
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008

2.  A Review of NICHD Standardized Nomenclature for Cardiotocography: The Importance of Speaking a Common Language When Describing Electronic Fetal Monitoring.

Authors:  Barrett Robinson
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008

3.  Randomised controlled trial of cardiotocography versus Doppler auscultation of fetal heart at admission in labour in low risk obstetric population.

Authors:  G Mires; F Williams; P Howie
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-06-16

4.  Electronic fetal monitoring: a Canadian survey.

Authors:  B L Davies; P A Niday; C A Nimrod; E R Drake; A E Sprague; M J Trépanier
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1993-05-15       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Cesarean Delivery and Indications Among Nulliparous, Term, Singleton, Vertex Women.

Authors:  Ijeoma C Okwandu; Meredith Anderson; Debbie Postlethwaite; Aida Shirazi; Sandra Torrente
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2021-07-12
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.