Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-qgndx Total loading time: 0.24 Render date: 2021-09-28T02:43:28.913Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Routine antenatal fetal assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Carole Barry-Kinsella*
Affiliation:
Rotunda Hospital, Dublin and Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast, Ireland.
James C Dornan
Affiliation:
Rotunda Hospital, Dublin and Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast, Ireland.
*
Address for correspondence: Rotunda Hospital, Dublin 1, Ireland.

Extract

The purpose of any form of antenatal fetal surveillance must be to recognize accurately fetal and environmental conditions which adversely influence perinatal mortality and morbidity at an early enough stage to use whatever corrective measures may be available. At booking, risk assessment identifies the woman with social or medical predictors of poor pregnancy outcome from the woman in good health who should have a successful pregnancy. Thus the high-risk patient is a woman in whom the chances of an adverse outcome to herself and/or the baby are greater than the incidence of that outcome in the general obstetric population. The corollary of this definition however, is that the “low-risk” obstetric patient still has the chance of an adverse outcome but the incidence of that outcome is that of the general obstetric population. In the absence of information relating specifically to the fetus, this maternal data is then extrapolated to predict the high or low risk fetus. This system however, does not predict the high risk normally formed stillbirth who is often, but not always, smaller than the gestational age-matched liveborn infant but who is commonly delivered of the low risk woman.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

1Wennergren, M, Wennergren, G, Vilbergsson, G. Obstetric characteristics and neonatal performance in a four year small for gestational age population. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72: 615–20.Google Scholar
2Dijxhoorn, MJ, Visser, GHA, Touwen, BCL, Huisjes, HJ, Apgar, score, meconium and acidaemia at birth in small for gestation age infants born at term and the relation to neonatal neurological morbidity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 94: 873–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Goodlin, RC. Intrauterine growth retardation is not the same as small for gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 1642–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Danielian, PJ, Allman, ACJ, Steer, PJ. Is obstetric and neonatal outcome worse in fetuses who fail to reach their own growth potential. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 452–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Altman, DG, Hytten, FE. Assessment of fetal size and fetal growth. In: Chalmers, I, Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC eds, Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth, volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989: 412.Google Scholar
6Campbell, S. The detection of intrauterine growth retardation. In: Sharp, F, Frazer, RB, Milner, RDG eds, Fetal growth. London: RCOG, 1989: 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Hull, D, Dobbing, J, Miller, RW et al. Definition, epidemiology, identification of abnormal fetal growth group report. In: Naftolin, F ed, Abnormal fetal growth: bases and consequences. Berlin: Dahlem Konferenzen, 1978: 6984.Google Scholar
8 DHSS report on the confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in England and Wales 1979–1981. DHSS report on health and social services 1986 No 29. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
9James, D. High risk pregnancies. In: Studd, J ed, Progress in obstetrics and gynaecology volume 7. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1989: 5373.Google Scholar
10Bottoms, S. Smoking, . In: Quennan, JT, Hobbins, JC eds, Protocols for high risk pregnancies New Jersey: Medical Economics Books, 1982: 1416.Google Scholar
11Wright, JT. Alcohol and drug abuse in pregnancy. Medicine International 1983; 35: 1630–31.Google Scholar
12Zuspan, SP. Drug and alcohol addiction. In: Quennan, JT, Hobbins, JC eds, Protocols for high risk pregnancies New Jersey: Medical Economics Books, 1982:39.Google Scholar
13Tejani, NA. Recurrence of growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 59: 329–31.Google ScholarPubMed
14Bakketeig, LS, Hoffman, HJ. Epidemiology of preterm birth: results from longitudinal study of births in Norway. In: Elder, MG, Hendricks, CH eds, Preterm labour. London: Butterworth International Medical Review, 1981.Google Scholar
15Campbell, DM, MacGillivray, I, Carr-Hill, R. Pre-eclampsia in a second pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 131–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Hall, MH, Halliwell, R, Carr-Hill, RA. Concomitant and repeated happenings in the third stage of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 732–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Rooth, G. Better perinatal health in Sweden. Lancet 1979; ii: 117–72.Google Scholar
18Singer, JE, Westphal, M, Niswander, K. Relationship of weight gain during pregnancy to birth weight and infant growth and development during the first year of life: a report from the collaborative study of cerebral palsy. Obstet Gynecol 1968; 31: 417–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Eastman, NJ, Jackson, E. Weight relationships in pregnancy. I. The bearing of maternal weight gain and pre-pregnancy weight and birth weight in fullterm pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1968; 23: 1003–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Abrams, BS, Largos, RK. Pre-pregnancy weight, weight gain and birth weight. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 154: 503509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Bruce, L, Tchabo, JG. Nutrition intervention program in prenatal clinic. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74: 310–1.Google ScholarPubMed
22Shepard, MJ, Hellenbrand, KG, Bracken, MB. Proportional weight gain and complications of pregnancy, labour and delivery in healthy women of normal stature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 155: 947–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Moller, B, Gebre-Nedhin, M, Lindmark, G. Maternal weight gain and birth weight at term in the rural Tanzanian village of Ihula. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 158–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Dawes, MG, Green, J, Ashurst, H. Routine weighing in pregnancy. Br MedJ 1992; 304: 487–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Sim, D, Beatty, RB, Dornan, JC. Evaluation of biophysical fetal assessment in high risk pregnancy to assess ultrasound primips who are suitable for screening in the low risk population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 3: 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Holmberg, NG, Vaclavinkova, V. Prediction of size of infants at birth by measurement of symphysis fundal height. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 206–11.Google Scholar
27Rogers, MS, Needham, PG. Evaluation of fundal height measurement in antenatal care. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 25: 87–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Cnattingius, S, Axelsson, O, Lindmark, G. The clinical value of measurements of the symphysis fundus distance and ultrasonic measurements of the biparietal diameter in the diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation. J Perinat Med 1985; 13: 227–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Cnattingius, S, Axelsson, O, Lindmark, G. Symphysis-fundus-measurements and intrauterine growth retardation. Ada Obstet Gynecol Scand 1984; 63: 335–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Calvert, JP, Crean, EE, Newcombe, RG, Pearson, JF. Antenatal screening by measurement of symphysis-fundal height. Br MedJ 1982; 285: 846–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Rosenberg, K, Grant, J, Hepburn, M. Antenatal detection of growth retardation: actual practice in a large maternity hospital. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982; 89: 1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Quaranta, P, Currell, R, Redman, CWG, Robinson, JS. Prediction of small-for-dates infants by measurement of symphysial-fundal height. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1981; 60: 115–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Wallin, A, Gyllenswaerd, A, Westin, B. Symphysis-fundus measurements in prediction of fetal growth disturbances. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1981; 6: 317–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Westin, B. Gravidogram and fetal growth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1977; 56: 273–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Belizan, JM, Villar, J, Nardin, JC, Malamud, J, DeVicuna, LS. Diagnosis of IUGR by a simple clinical method: measurement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978; 131: 643–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36Persson, B, Stangenberg, M, Lunell, NO, Brodin, U, Holmberg, NG, Vaclavinkova, V. Reduction of size of infants at birth by measurement of the symphysis fundal height. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 206–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37Backe, B, Nakling, J. Effectiveness of antenatal care: a population based study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 727–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38Lindhard, A, Neilson, PV, Mouritsen, LA, Zachariassen, A, Sorensen, HU, Roseno, H. The implications of introducing the symphysial-fundal height-measurement. A prospective randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97: 675–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39Sadovsky, E, Yaffe, H. Daily fetal movement recording and fetal prognosis. Obstet Gynecol 1973; 41: 845–50.Google ScholarPubMed
40Pearson, JS, Weaver, JB. Fetal activity and fetal wellbeing: an evaluation. Br MedJ 1976; 1: 1305–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41Neldam, S. Fetal movements as an indicator of fetal wellbeing. Danish Med Bull 1983; 30: 274–78.Google Scholar
42Grant, AM, Elbourne, DR, Valentin, L, Alexander, S. Routine formal fetal movement counting and risk of antepartum late death in normally formed singletons. Lancet 1989; 2: 345–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43Neilson, JP. Routine formal fetal movement (SM counting). In: Chalmers, I ed, Oxford data basis perinatal trials. Version 1.2,6. Autumn, 1991: overview 4364.Google Scholar
44Bennett, MJ, Little, G, Dewhurst, J, Chamberlain, G. Predictive value of ultrasound measurement in early pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 89: 338–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45Eik-Nes, SH, Okland, O, Aure, JC. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 1984; 1: 1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46Bakketteig, LS, Eik-Nes, SJ, Jacobsen, et al. Randomized controlled trial of ultrasonographic screening in pregnancy. Lancet 1984; 2: 207–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47Waldenstrom, U, Axelsson, O, Nilsson, S et al. Effects of routine one stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a randomized control triall. Lancet 1988; 2: 585–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48Sarri-Kemppainen, A, Karjalainen, O, Ylostalo, P, Heinonen, OP. Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: control trial of systematic one stage screening of pregnancy. Lancet 1990; 336: 387–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49Neilson, JP, Munjanja, SP, Whitfield, CR. Screening for small for dates fetuses. A control trial. Br Med J 1984; 289: 1179–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50Ewigman, B, Lefevre, M, Hesser, J. A randomized trial of routine prenatal ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76: 189–94.Google ScholarPubMed
51Seeker, NJ, Kerr, N, Hansen, P, Lenstrup, C, Sindberg Eriksen, P, Morsing, G. A randomized study of fetal abdominal diameter of fetal weight estimation for detection of light for gestation infants in low risk pregnancies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 94: 104109.Google Scholar
52Neilson, JP. Routine ultrasonography in early pregnancy. In: Chalmers I ed, Oxford data basis perinatal trials. Version 1.2,6, Autumn 1991: overview 3872.Google Scholar
53Bucher, CB, Schmidt, JG. Does routine ultrasound scanning improve outcome in pregnancy? Meta-analysis of various outcome measures. Br Med J 1993; 307: 1317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54LeFevre, ML, Bain, RP, Ewigman, BE, Frigoletto, FD, Crane, JP, McNellis D and the RADIUS Study Group. A randomized trial of prenatal ultrasonographic screening: impact on maternal management and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169: 483–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55Campbell, S, Dewhurst, CJ. Diagnosis of the small for dates fetus by serial ultrasound cephalometry. Lancet 1971; 2: 10021006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56Neilson, JP, Whitfield, CR, Aitchison, TC. Screening for small for dates fetus: a two stage ultrasonic examination scheduled. Br Med J 1980; 280: 1203–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57Neilson, J, Grant, A. Ultrasound in pregnancy. In: Chalmers, I, Enkin, MW, Keirse, MJNC eds, Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989: 419–39.Google Scholar
58Grannum, PA, Berkowitz, RL, Bobbins, JC. The ultrasonic changes in the maturing placenta and their relation to fetal pulmonary maturity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 133: 915–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59Quinlan, RW, Cruz, AL, Buhi, WC, Martin, M. Changes in placenta! ultrasonic appearance. I Incidence of grade III changes in the placenta in correlation to fetal pulmonary maturity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 144: 468–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60Quinlan, RW, Cruz, AL, Buhi, WC, Martin, M. Changes in placental ultrasonic appearance. II Pathologic significance of grade III placental changes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 144: 471–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
61Proud, J, Grant, A. Third trimester placental grading by ultrasonography as a test of fetal wellbeing. Br MedJ 1987; 294: 1641–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
62Kubli, S, Boos, R, Ruttgers, H, VonHagens, C, Vansclow, H. Antepartum SHR monitoring. In: Beard, RW, Campbell, S eds, Current status of FSHR monitoring and ultrasound obstetrics. London: RCOG, 1978.Google Scholar
63Schifrin, BS, Foy, G, Amato, J, Kates, R, McKenna, J. Routine fetal heart rate monitoring in the antepartum period. Obstet Gynecol 1979; 54: 21–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64Solum, T, Sjoberg, NO. Antenatal cardiotocography and intrauterine death. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1980; 59: 481–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
65Kidd, LC, Patel, NB, Smith, R. Non stress cardiotocography -a prospect of blind study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 1152–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66Flynn, AM, Kelly, J, Mansfield, H, Needham, P, O'Connor, M, Viegas, O. A randomized control trial of non stress antepartum cardiotocography. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1982; 89: 427–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
67Kidd, LC, Patel, MB, Smith, R. Non stress antenatal cardiotocography - a prospect of randomized clinical trials. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 1156–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68Lindsay, PC, Vellacott, ID, O'Brien, BMS. Evaluation of patient recorded traces in home monitoring of the fetus. Contemp Rev Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 1: 190–94.Google Scholar
69Thacker, SB, Berkelman, RL. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of selected antepartum fetal surveillance techniques. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1986; 41: 121–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
70Platt, LD, Manning, FA, LeMay, M, Sipof, L. Human fetal breathing: relationship to fetal condition. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978; 132: 514–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
71Manning, FA, Platt, LD, Sipof, L, Keegan, KA. Fetal breathing movements and the non-stress test in high risk pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 135: 511–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72Manning, FA, Hill, LM, Platt, LD. Quantitative amniotic fluid volume determination by ultrasound: antepartum detection of intrauterine growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 139: 254–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73Cohn, HE, Sacks, ET, Heyman, MA, Abraham, MR. Cardiovascular responses to hypoxemia and acidemia in fetal lambs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1974; 120: 817–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
74Vintzileos, AM, Gaffney, FE, Salinger, LM, Kontopoulos, VG, Campbell, WA, Nochimson, DJ. The relationship among the fetal biophysical profile on blanket cord pH and Apgar score. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 627–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75Ribbert, LS, Snijders, RJ, Nicolaides, KH, Visser, GH. Relationship where fetal biophysical profile and blood gas values at cordocentesis in severely growth retarded fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163: 569–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
76Manning, FA, Platt, LD, Sipof, L. Antepartum fetal evaluation: development of fetal biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 136: 787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
77Baskett, TF. Fetal biophysical profile. In: Studd, J ed, Progress in obstetrics and gynaecology volume 77. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1989: 145–60.Google Scholar
78Vintzileos, AM, Campbell, WA, Ingardia, CJ, Nochimson, DJ. The fetal biophysical profile and its predictive value. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62: 271–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
79Platt, L, Eglinton, F, Sipof, L, Broussard, P, Paul, R. Further experiences with the biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 61: 480–85.Google Scholar
80Manning, F, Morrison, I, Lange, I, Harman, C, Chamberlain, P. Antepartum determination of fetal health. Composite biophysical profile scoring. Clin Perinatal 1982; 2: 825–86.Google Scholar
81National Maternity Hospital, Holies Street Annual Report 1990.Google Scholar
82Manny, FA, Hannon, CR, Menticozlou, S, Morrison, I. Assessment of fetal well-being with ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1991; 18: 891–905.Google Scholar
83Campbell, S, Pearce, JMF, Hackett, G, Cohen-Overbeek, T, Hernandez, C. Qualitative assessment of uteroplacental blood flow: an early screening for high risk pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 68: 649–53.Google ScholarPubMed
84Fleisher, A, Schulman, H, Farmakides, G et al. Uterine artery Doppler velocimetry in pregnant women with hypertension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1966; 154: 806–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
85Arduini, D, Rizzo, G, Romanini, C, Mancuso, S. Uteroplacental blood velocity waveforms as predictors of pregnancy induced hypertension. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1987; 26: 335–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
86Jacobson, SL, Imhof, R, Manning, N, Mannion, V, Little, D, Rey, E et al. The value of Doppler assessment of the uteroplacental circulation in predicting preeclampsia or intrauterine growth retardation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 110–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
87Newham, JP, Patterson, LL, James, IR, Diapaveen, DA, Reid, SE. An evaluation of Doppler flow velocity waveform analysis as a screening test in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 403–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
88Bewley, S, Cooper, D, Campbell, S. Doppler investigation of uteroplacental blood flow in the second trimester: a screening study for pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 871–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
89Harrington, K, Campbell, S, Bewley, S, Bower, S. Doppler velocimetry studies of the uterine artery in the early prediction of pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth retardation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 42: 814–20.Google Scholar
90Sijmons, EA, Reuwer, PJHM, Van Beek, E, Bruinse, HW. The validity of screening of small for gestational age and low weight infants by Doppler ultrasound. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 557–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
91Steer, CV, Campbell, S, Pampiglione, J, Kingsland, C, Mason, BA, Collins, WP. Transvaginal colour flow imaging of the uterine arteries during the ovarian and menstrual cycles. Hum Reprod 1990; 5: 391–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
92Jurkovic, D, Jauniaux, E, Kurjak, A, Campbell, S et al. Transvaginal colour Doppler assessment of the uteroplacental circulation in early pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 365: 365–69.Google Scholar
93Harrington, K, Campbell, S. The prediction of pre-eclampsia using transvaginal Doppler in early pregnancy. Abstracts from the proceedings of the 23rd annual BMUS scientific meeting, BJR 1992; 65: 775.Google Scholar
94Sijmons, EA, Reuwer, PJH, Van Beek, E, Bruinse, HW. The validity of screening for small-for-gestational age and low-weight-for-length infants by Doppler ultrasound. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 557–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
95Reuwer, PJH, Sijmons, EA, Reitman, GW, van Tiel, MWM, Bruinse, HW. Intrauterine growth retardation: prediction of perinatal distress by Doppler ultrasound. Lancet 1987; ii: 415–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
96Beattie, BR, Dornan, JC. Antenatal screening for intrauterine growth retardation with umbilical artery Doppler ultrasonography. Br MedJ 1989; 298: 631–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Routine antenatal fetal assessment
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Routine antenatal fetal assessment
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Routine antenatal fetal assessment
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *