Uterine contraction frequency in the last hour of labor: how many contractions are too many?*

References

• Devoe LD. Fetal ECG analysis for intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring: a review. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54:56–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devoe LD. Future perspectives in intrapartum fetal surveilance. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;30:98–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson KR, James DC. Effects of oxytocin-induced uterine hyperstimulation during labor on fetal oxygen status and fetal heart rate patterns. Am J Obstet Gyneol. 2008;199:34.e1–34.35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds AJ, Geary MP, Hayes BC. Intrapartum uterine activity and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review. MBC Preg & Childbirth. 2020;20:532.
   Google Scholar
• Visser GHA, Ayres-de-Campos D, Barnea ER, et al. FIGO position paper: how to stop the caesarean section epidemic. Lancet. 2018;392:1286–1287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Induction of labor ACOG practice bulletin #107. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:386–397.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Executive summary: Neonatal encephalopathy and neurologic outcome, second edition. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ task force on neonatal encephalopathy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:896–901.
   Google Scholar
• Electronic fetal monitoring. AWHONN position statement. J Obstet Gynecol Neonat Nurs. 2017;47:874–877.
   Google Scholar
• Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Clinical Guideline December 2014. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg190. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Guidelines. Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidelines.
   Google Scholar
• Intrapartum Care. Care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Clinical Guidelines; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Eden RD, Evans MI, Britt DW, et al. Combined prenatal and postnatal prediction of early neonatal compromise risk. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021;34(18):2996–3007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans MI, Britt DW, Eden RD, et al. Earlier and improved screening for impending fetal compromise. J Mat Fet Neonat Med. 2020;1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans MI, Britt DW, Evans SM. Midforceps didn’t cause “compromised babies” – “compromise caused forceps: an approach towards safely lowering the cesarean delivery rate. J Matern Fet Neonat Med. 2021;1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden RD, Evans MI, Britt DW, et al. Safely lowering the emergency cesarean and operative vaginal delivery rates using the fetal reserve index. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33:1473–1479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt DW, Evans MI, Schifrin BS, et al. Refining the prediction and prevention of emergency operative deliveries with the fetal reserve index. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2018;46(3):159–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden RD, Evans MI, Evans SM, et al. Reengineering electronic fetal monitoring interpretation: using the fetal reserve index to anticipate the need for emergent operative delivery. Reprod Sci. 2018;25(4):487–497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden RD, Evans MI, Evans SM, et al. The “fetal reserve index”: re-engineering the interpretation and responses to fetal heart rate patterns. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2018;43(2):90–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans MI, Britt DW, Eden RD, et al. The fetal reserve index significantly outperforms ACOG category system in predicting cord blood base excess and pH: a methodological failure of the category system. Reprod Sci. 2019;26:858–863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans MI, Eden RD, Britt DW, et al. Re-engineering the interpretation of electronic fetal monitoring to identify reversible risk for cerebral palsy: a case control series. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32:2561–2569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans M, Eden R, Britt D, et al. Reconceptualizing fetal monitoring. Eur J Gyn Obstet. 2019;1:10–17.
   Google Scholar
• Jenabi E, Khazaei S, Bashirian S, et al. Reasons for elective cesarean section on maternal request: a systematic review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33:3867–3872.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obrien-Abel N. Clinical implications of fetal heart rate interpretations based on underlying physiology. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;45:82–91.
   Google Scholar
• Bila J, Plesinac S, Vidakovic S, et al. Clinical and ultrasonographic parameters in assessment of labor induction success in nulliparous women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33:3990–3997.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lam MSN, Chaemasaithong P, Kwan AHW, et al. Prelabor short-term variability in fetal heart rate by computerized cardiotocogram and maternal fetal doppler indicies for the prediction of labor outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malvasi A, Raimondo P, Beck R, et al. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33:3584–3590.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youssef A, Kamel R. Ultrasound in labor: impact of a theoretical and practical course in caregiver’s perspective and accuracy. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33:3163–3169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snead CM, Strassberg E, Overcash R, et al. Obstetrician’s knowledge and practices regarding in the management of preeclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33:2970–2975.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ornat L, Alsonso-Ventura V, Bueno-Notivol J, et al. Health outcomes and systematic (HOUSSAY) research group: misoprostol combined with cervical single or double baloon catheters versus misoprostol alone for labor induction of singleton pregnancies: a meta analysis of randomized trials. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33:3453–3468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar