Unfortunately, the article is based on a presentation at a medical conference. There isn't a published study that I can look up, read, and evaluate. What I can say in the absence of more data is that it is a leap of logic to think that fetal surveillance testing could avert this risk. For example, women over age 40 may be more likely to have babies with fatal congenital anomalies, or the problem may be one that comes on suddenly and would not be picked up by periodic testing.
Also arguing against the practice is that we have no evidence that routine fetal surveillance testing improves outcomes in low- or high-risk women. Moreover, testing of this type has a high false-positive rate, meaning the test says there is a problem when nothing is wrong. When the odds of something being wrong are tiny, as they almost certainly will be here, the odds of a false positive are much higher than a true positive. A positive test will result in inducing labor or scheduling cesarean surgery. This is not benign. Both procedures carry risks for babies and mothers. Among other adverse effects, even at 38 weeks, which is officially full-term, babies born from other than spontaneous onset labors are more likely to have respiratory and feeding difficulties.
All Times America/New_York
Please note that this Forum is intended to help women make informed decisions about their care. The content is not a substitute for medical advice.