Assessing the preference of women for different methods of monitoring the fetal heart in labour

South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 58-59

  Mangesi, L ^a   Hofmeyr, G J ^a   Woods, D L ^b  

^a ROYAL LONDON HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARDIOTOCOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOPPLER ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FETUS HEART RATE; FETUS MONITORING; HUMAN; LABOR; LABOR STAGE 1; MATERNAL ATTITUDE; STETHOSCOPE;

EID: 70449675087     PISSN: 00382329     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (5)

1. Wood SH. Should women be given a choice about fetal assessment in labour. American Journal of Maternal and Child Nursing 2003; 28: 292-298.
2. Feinstein NF. Fetal heart rate auscultation: current and future practice. J Obstet Gynaecol Neonatal Nurs 2000; 29: 306-315.
3. Albers LL. Monitoring the fetus in labour: evidence to support the methods. J Midwifery Womens Health 2001; 46: 366-373.
4. Banta DH, Thacker SB. Historical controversy in health technology assessment: the case of electronic fetal monitoring. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001; 56: 707-719.
5. Mahomed K, Nyoni R, Mulambo J, Kasule E, Jacobus E. Randomised controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. BMJ 1994; 308: 497-500. (Pubitemid 24084236)