Talk:Cardiotocograph
{{WPMED}}
Moved from article: Sadly, the early promise of EFM was not realized. It is now apparent that EFM can predict healthy babies well, but is poor at predicting sick babies. Obstetricians failed to appreciate this, and consequently the rate of cesarean sections greatly increased for the presumed diagnosis of "fetal distress". Evidence, please? Sources? Kosebamse 16:47, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It also created a field day for the lawyers, who could always find a doctor for hire who would read more into the EFM than was ever there. Evidence? Sources? Kosebamse
Many excellent institutions have now reduced their use of EFM and rely mostly on old-fashioned intermittent auditory monitoring. Evidence? Sources? Kosebamse
Also, it now appears that cerebral palsy is seldom caused by events during labor and delivery, but results from problems that arise during intrauterine development. While it is true that cerebral palsy may have antenatal causes, it remains a fact that intra partum asphyxia does cause cerebral palsy, and therefore this sentence should be more specific on relative proportions and statistics. Kosebamse
The upshot is that, after years of EFM use, the incidence of CP has not declined significantly. This is not NPOV, and as long as there is no source given and a NPOV phrase be fouznd, it can not stay in the article. Kosebamse
Image needed
[edit]Nice image of the machine, but how about an image of the woman being monitored? Una Smith 23:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Reading the strips
[edit]See some discussion about fetal variable decelerations here. --Una Smith (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)