Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T14:59:32.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decision making in obstetrics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Allan MZ Chang  and
Michael S Rogers
Allan MZ Chang*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Michael S Rogers
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
*
Professor AMZ Chang, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper presents a review of decision making in obstetrics. The first section deals with the obstetric problem-solving model, the second general decision theory and finally several aspects of decision making in the domain of obstetrics are examined.

Type
Articles
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Williams, BT. Professional activity in medicine. In: Williams, BT ed, Computer aids to clinical decisions, Volume 1, Florida: CRC Press, 1982: 5–62.Google Scholar
2Balla, JI.The diagnostic process: a model for clinical teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
3Fink, DJ, Galen, RS. Probabilistic approaches to clinical decision support. In: Williams, BT ed, Computer aids to clinical decisions, Volume 11, Florida: CRC Press, 1982: 1–66.Google Scholar
4Dowie, J, Elstein, S.Professional judgment: a reader in clinical decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
5Dudley, HAF.Pay-off, heuristics and pattern recognition in the diagnostic process. Lancet 1968; 2: 723–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6McNamee, P, Celona, J.Decision analysis for the professional with Supertree. California: Scientific Press, 1987.Google Scholar
7Elstein, AS, Kagan, NF, Shulman, LS et al. Methods and theory in the study of medical inquiry. J Medical Education 1972; 47: 85–92.Google Scholar
8de Dombal, FT.Medical diagnosis from a clinical point of view. Methods of Information in Medicine 1978: 17: 28–35.Google Scholar
9Shank, RC, Farrell, R.Creativity in education: a standard for computer-based teaching. Machine-Mediated Learning, 1987; Suppl.yes: 3–22.Google Scholar
10Kahneman, D, Tversky, A.Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychologist 1984; 39: 341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Hershey, JC, Baron, J.Clinical reasoning and cognitive processes. Med Decis Making 1987; 7: 203–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Lilford, R, Chard, T.Computers in obstetrics: a review. Obstet Gynecol Survey 1983; 38: 125–37.Google Scholar
13Rogers, MS, Chang, AMZ. Birth asphyxia: Development of a computer prediction model, (submitted for publication).Google Scholar
14von Neumann, J, Morgenstern, O.Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, 1947.Google Scholar
15Elstein, AS, Holzman, GB, Ravitch, MM et al. Comparison of physicians' decisions regarding estrogen replacement therapy for menopausal women and decisions derived from a decision analytic model. Am J Med 1986; 80: 246–58.Google Scholar
16Pauker, SP, Pauker, SG.The amniocentesis decision: an explicit guide for parents. Birth Defects 1979; 15: 289–324.Google Scholar
17Flanagan, TA, Mulchahey, KM.Korenbrot, CC et al. Management of term breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156: 1492–502.Google Scholar
18Bingham, P, Lilford, RJ.Management of the selected term breech presentation: assessment of the risks of selected vaginal delivery versus cesarean section for all cases. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1987; 69: 965–78.Google Scholar
19Hay, D.Observations on breech presentation and delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Empire 1959; 66: 529–47.Google Scholar
20Ranney, B.The gentle art of external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973; 116: 239–51.Google Scholar
21Neely, MR.External cephalic version under anaesthesia. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1961; 68: 490–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Fell, MR.External cephalic version. Lancet 1953; 2: 364–68.Google Scholar
23Fall, O, Nilsson, B A.External cephalic version in breech presentation under tocolysis. Obstet Gynecol 1979; 53: 712–15.Google Scholar
24van Dorsten, JP, Schifrin, BS, Wallace, RL.Randomised control trial of external cephalic version with tocolysis in late pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 141: 417–24.Google Scholar
25O'Driscol, K, Jackson, RJA, Gallagher, JT.Active management of labour and cephalopelvic disproportion. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1970; 77: 385–89.Google Scholar
26Editorial. The Washington Post. 111 1987.Google Scholar
27Baron, J.Tradeoffs among reasons for action. Theory Soc Behav 1986; 16: 173–95.Google Scholar
28Ferguson-Smith, MA.The reduction of anencephalic and spina bifida births by maternal alphafetoprotein screening. Br Med Bull 1983; 39: 365–72.Google Scholar
29Lange, IR.Congenital anomalies: detection and strategies for management. Seminars in Perinatology 1985; 9: 151–62.Google ScholarPubMed
30Hagard, S, Carter, F, Milne, RG.Screening for spina bifida cystica: a cost-benefit analysis. Br J Prev Soc Med 1976; 30: 40–53.Google Scholar
31Roberts, CJ, Hibbard, BM, Elder, GH et al. Screening for disease: the efficacy of a serum screening service for neural-tube defects: the South Wales experience. Lancet 1983; 1: 1315–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Carstairs, V, Cole, S.Spina bifida and anencephaly in Scotland. Br Med J 1984; 289: 1182–85.Google Scholar
33Richards, DS, Seeds, JW, Katz, VL et al. Elevated maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein with normal ultrasound: is amniocentesis always appropriate? A review of 26,069 screened patients. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 71: 203–207.Google Scholar
34Ferguson-Smith, MA, Yates, JRW.Maternal age specific rates for chromosome aberrations and factors influencing them: report of a collaborative European study on 52,965 amniocenteses. Prenatal Diagn Suppl 1984; 4: 5–44.Google Scholar
35Turnbull, AC, Fairweather, DV, Hibbard, BM et al. An assessment of the hazards of amniocentesis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1978; 85 (Suppl. 2yes): 1–41.Google Scholar
36Check, WA.Medical news. Antenatal diagnosis: what is ‘standard’? JAMA 1979; 241: 1666–75.Google Scholar
37Stark, CR, White, NB. Cluster analysis and racial differences in risk of Down's syndrome. In: Hook, EB, Porter, IH eds, Population cytogenetics, New York: Academic Press, 1976: 275–83.Google Scholar
38Emanuel, I, Huang, SW, Gutman, LT et al. The incidence of congenital malformations in a Chinese population: the Taipei collaborative study. Teratology 1972; 5: 159–69.Google Scholar
39Rogers, MS.Racial variations in the incidence of Trisomy 21. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 597–99.Google Scholar
40Pauker, SP, Pauker, SG.The amniocentesis decision: ten years of decision analytic experience. Birth Defects: Original Article Series 1987: 23: 151–69.Google Scholar
41Katayama, KP, Park, J, Heller, RH et al. Errors of prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 1974; 44: 693–98.Google Scholar
42Hammond, JS III. Better decisions with preference theory. Harvard Business Review 1967; Nov/Dec: 123–41.Google Scholar
43Hull, J, Moore, PG, Thomas, H.Utility and its measurement. JR Statist Ass 1973; 136: 226–47.Google Scholar