Arch Fam Med
Institution: STANFORD Univ Med Center  | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In
  Vol. 2 No. 12, December 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  •  Online Features
 This Article
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

The Routine Antenatal Diagnostic Imaging With Ultrasound Study

The Challenge to Practice Evidence-Based Obstetrics

Louise Acheson, MD, MS; Lisa Mitchell, PhD

Arch Fam Med. 1993;2(12):1229-1231.

Article references have been provided for searching and linking. Additional reference information may be available in the article PDF.

1. Ewigman BG, Crane JP, Frigoletto FD, et al. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:821-827. FREE FULL TEXT
2. LeFevre ML. Bain RP, Ewigman BG, et al. A randomized trial of prenatal ultrasonographic screening: impact on maternal management and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169:483-489. PUBMED
3. Ewigman B. Research for patients in the practice setting: the next generation. Presented at the North American Primary Care Research Group Twentieth Annual Meeting; April 13, 1992; Richmond, Va.
4. Bucher HC, Schmidt JG. Does routine ultrasound scanning improve outcome in pregnancy? meta-analysis of various outcome measures. BMJ. 1993;307:13-17. FREE FULL TEXT
5. Anderson GM. An Analysis of Temporal and Regional Trends in the Use of Prenatal Ultrasonography. Ottawa, Ontario: Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies; 1992.
6. Blondel B, Ringa V, Breart G. The use of ultrasound examinations, intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring and beta-mimetic drugs in France. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;96:44-51. PUBMED
7. Heringa M. Huisjes HJ. Prenatal screening: current policy in EC countries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;28(suppl):7-52.
8. US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health. Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging in Pregnancy. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1984. US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare publication NIH 84-667.
9. Mitchell LM. Making Babies: The Cultural Construction of the Fetus and Routine Ultrasound Imaging in Montreal, Canada. Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Reserve University: 1993. Dissertation.
10. Faludi S. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. New York, NY: Crown Publishers; 1991.
11. Oakley A. The Captured Womb: A History of the Medical Care of Pregnant Women. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell Publisher; 1986.
12. Petcheskey R. Foetal images: the power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. In: Stanworth M, ed. Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1987:57-70.
13. Arney WR. Power and the Profession of Obstetrics. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press; 1982.
14. Salvesen KÅ, Vatten LJ, Eik-Nes SH, Hugdahl K, Bakketeig LS. Routine ultrasonography in utero and subsequent handedness and neurological development. BMJ. 1993;307:159-164. FREE FULL TEXT
15. Smith MA, Klein M, Hu DH, Ewigman B, Lefevre M, Fox S. Technological as sessment and changing physician behavior. Presented at the 26th Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Annual Spring Conference; April 27, 1993; San Diego, Calif.
16. Freeman R. Intrapartum fetal monitoring: a disappointing story. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:624-626. PUBMED
17. Public Health Service Expert Panel on the Content of Prenatal Care. Caring for Our Future: The Content of Prenatal Care. Washington, DC: US Public Health Service; 1989.