Cohen A B, Klapholz H, Thompson M S
Med Decis Making. 1982;2(1):79-95. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8200200111.
Interviews with 12 obstetricians recognized for their scientific and clinical contributions in the use of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) revealed notable areas of agreement and disagreement in the interpretation and use of these methods. In reviewing 14 abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) patterns, the obstetricians displayed an average pairwise agreement of 68% in classifying the patterns as "innocuous," "nonreassuring," or "ominous." When these patterns persisted after corrective treatment, average pairwise agreement was 69% in deciding between continued monitoring and immediate delivery. With the additional option of scalp blood pH sampling, average agreement was 59%. For the set of FHR patterns studied, scalp blood pH sampling was recommended more often to confirm conservative management of labor than to verify the need to intervene. The obstetricians may be classified by their degrees of (1) alarm and (2) interventionism, and by their (3) frequency of and (4) motivation for scalp sampling. Associations among these four dimensions of behavior were limited.
对12位因在电子胎儿监护(EFM)应用方面的科学及临床贡献而受到认可的产科医生进行的访谈显示,在这些方法的解读和使用上存在显著的共识和分歧领域。在回顾14种异常胎儿心率(FHR)模式时,产科医生在将这些模式分类为“无害”“不令人安心”或“凶险”方面的平均两两一致性为68%。当这些模式在纠正治疗后仍持续存在时,在决定继续监测还是立即分娩方面的平均两两一致性为69%。有了头皮血pH值采样这一额外选项后,平均一致性为59%。对于所研究的FHR模式组,推荐进行头皮血pH值采样更多是为了确认保守的产程管理,而非核实干预的必要性。产科医生可根据他们的(1)警觉程度、(2)干预主义程度、(3)头皮采样频率以及(4)头皮采样动机进行分类。这四个行为维度之间的关联有限。