These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Clinical use of central electronic monitoring system].
    Author: Guo X, Xu H, Xie K.
    Journal: Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2000 Jan; 35(1):17-9. PubMed ID: 11831942.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of central electronic monitoring system (CEMS). METHODS: A total of 1,216 patients with > or = 37 weeks of gestation assigned as monitoring group, were performed central electronic monitoring during labor from Nov. 1997 to Mar. 1998. A total of 1,137 patients with same gestational age assigned as control group, were monitored by using intermittent auscultation during labor from Nov. 1996 to Mar. 1997. The rate of fetal distress, neonatal asphyxia, cesarean section, and using of forceps or vacuum extractor in the 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: Patients in the monitoring group had a higher fetal distress rate (12.8%) than that of the control group (9.8%, P < 0.05), but a significantly lower neonatal asphyxia rate (2.3%) than that of the control group (4.8%, P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the overall cesarean rate, cesarean rate for fetal distress, overall use rate of forceps or vacuum extractor delivery, and vaginal operative delivery rate for suspected fetal distress between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Quality for obstetric care was significantly improved by application of central electronic monitoring for labor management, it didn't increase the cesarean section rate and vaginal operative delivery rate, but decreased the neonatal asphyxia rate.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]