Literature DB >> 6424166

Electronic fetal monitoring in relation to cesarean section delivery, for live births and stillbirths in the U.S., 1980.

P J Placek, K G Keppel, S M Taffel, T L Liss.   

Abstract

In the 1980 National Natality and Fetal Mortality Surveys, information about fetal monitoring and type of delivery was obtained from hospitals for a sample of 9,941 live births and 6,386 fetal deaths of 28 weeks' gestation or more. Data in this analysis are weighted to provide national estimates of live births and late fetal deaths that occurred in U.S. hospitals during 1980. Electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) was used for 47.7 percent of live births; 27.2 percent were monitored by Doppler ultrasound only, 10.2 percent by scalp electrode only, 6.3 percent by Doppler ultrasound and scalp electrode only, and 4.0 percent by other methods and combinations. The distribution by type of EFM used was similar for the 42.7 percent of late fetal deaths (also called stillbirths) that were monitored. Variation in the use of EFM for live births and stillbirths is examined according to maternal age, parity, education, race, marital status, income, previous fetal loss, underlying medical conditions, complications of pregnancy, complications of labor, duration of labor, infant birth weight, and length of gestation. Among live births, 17.1 percent were delivered by cesarean section, as were 16.8 percent of stillbirths. The association between fetal monitoring and the primary cesarean section rate (the probability of cesarean section for women who had never had one) for all birth orders and for first births is examined according to characteristics of the mothers and the infants. Factors involved in the consistent association found between fetal monitoring and the primary cesarean section rate are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6424166      PMCID: PMC1424552     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Rep        ISSN: 0033-3549            Impact factor:   2.792


  15 in total

1.  The fetal monitoring debate.

Authors:  J C Hobbins; R Freeman; J T Queenan
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1979-07       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Clinical fetal monitoring: its effect on cesarean section rate and perinatal mortality: five-year trends.

Authors:  R H Paul; J R Huey; C F Yaeger
Journal:  Postgrad Med       Date:  1977-04       Impact factor: 3.840

3.  Internal fetal monitoring and maternal infection following cesarean section. A prospective study.

Authors:  R S Gibbs; P M Jones; C J Wilder
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1978-08       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Effect of fetal monitoring on cesarean section rates.

Authors:  R R Neutra; S Greenland; E A Friedman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1980-02       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Trends in cesarean section rates for the United States, 1970--78.

Authors:  P J Placek; S M Taffel
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1980 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.792

6.  Intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring in low-risk pregnancies.

Authors:  M Westgren; E Ingemarsson; I Ingemarsson; T Solum
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1980-09       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Cesarean sections in upstate New York, 1968-1978.

Authors:  M S Zdeb; G D Therriault; V M Logrillo
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1980-09       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  A controlled trial of the differential effects of intrapartum fetal monitoring.

Authors:  A D Haverkamp; M Orleans; S Langendoerfer; J McFee; J Murphy; H E Thompson
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1979-06-15       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Effects of electronic fetal heart rate monitoring on perinatal outcome and obstetric practices.

Authors:  E Mueller-Heubach; H M MacDonald; D Joret; M A Portman; D I Edelstone; S N Caritis
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1980-08-01       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  An assessment of continuous fetal heart rate monitoring in labor. A randomized trial.

Authors:  I M Kelso; R J Parsons; G F Lawrence; S S Arora; D K Edmonds; I D Cooke
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1978-07-01       Impact factor: 8.661

View more
  4 in total

1.  Trends in the United States cesarean section rate and reasons for the 1980-85 rise.

Authors:  S M Taffel; P J Placek; T Liss
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 9.308

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

Authors:  J McCusker; D R Harris; D W Hosmer
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Malpractice premiums and primary cesarean section rates in New York and Illinois.

Authors:  S M Rock
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1988 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.792

4.  Does the Use of Diagnostic Technology Reduce Fetal Mortality?

Authors:  Jostein Grytten; Irene Skau; Rune Sørensen; Anne Eskild
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 3.402

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.