Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2010 Dec;116(6):1397-1400.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181fae39f.

Electronic fetal monitoring as a public health screening program: the arithmetic of failure

Affiliations
Editorial

Electronic fetal monitoring as a public health screening program: the arithmetic of failure

David A Grimes et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec.

Abstract

Electronic fetal monitoring has failed as a public health screening program. Nevertheless, most of the four million low-risk women giving birth in the United States each year continue to undergo this screening. The failure of this program should have been anticipated and thus avoided had the accepted principles of screening been considered before its introduction. All screening tests have poor positive predictive value when searching for rare conditions such as fetal death in labor or cerebral palsy. This problem is aggravated when the screening test does not have good validity as is the case with electronic fetal monitoring. Because of low-prevalence target conditions and mediocre validity, the positive predictive value of electronic fetal monitoring for fetal death in labor or cerebral palsy is near zero. Stated alternatively, almost every positive test result is wrong. To avoid such costly errors in the future, the prerequisites for any screening program must be fulfilled before the program is begun.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Law M. Screening without evidence of efficacy. BMJ 2004;328:301–2.
    1. Lent M. The medical and legal risks of the electronic fetal monitor. Stanford Law Rev 1999;51:807–37.
    1. Steurer J, Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Koller M, ter Riet G. Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study. BMJ 2002;324:824–6.
    1. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Uses and abuses of screening tests. Lancet 2002;359:881–4.
    1. Martin DH, Cammarata C, Van Der Pol B, Jones RB, Quinn TC, Gaydos CA, et al. Multicenter evaluation of AMPLICOR and automated COBAS AMPLICOR CT/NG tests for Neisseria gonorrhoeae. J Clin Microbiol 2000;38:3544–9.

Publication types