Geburtsüberwachung

  • Gnirs J
  • Schneider K
  • Schiermeier S
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In the most recent year for which data are available, approximately 3.4 million fetuses (85% of approximately 4 million live births) in the United States were assessed with electronic fetal monitoring (EFM), making it the most common obstetric procedure (1). Despite its widespread use, there is controversy about the efficacy of EFM, interobserver and intraobserver variability, nomenclature, systems for interpretation, and management algorithms. Moreover, there is evidence that the use of EFM increases the rate of cesarean deliveries and operative vaginal deliveries. The purpose of this document is to review nomenclature for fetal heart rate assessment, review the data on the efficacy of EFM, delineate the strengths and shortcomings of EFM, and describe a system for EFM classification. Copyright © July 2009 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gnirs, J., Schneider, K.-T. M., & Schiermeier, S. (2016). Geburtsüberwachung. In Die Geburtshilfe (pp. 693–747). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45064-2_30

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free