A comprehensive evidence-based review of the clinical data leads to the conclusion that if patients at high risk for preterm birth (eg, prior preterm birth because of preterm labor, twins and higher-order multiple gestation, women who have preterm labor during the current pregnancy tocolyzed effectively) use the comprehensive system of HUAM correctly (ie, daily nursing care and twice-daily monitoring) with appropriate alarm rates and sensitive monitors, the incidence of early diagnosis of preterm labor, effective prolongation of pregnancy with fewer preterm births, and a reduction in neonatal morbidity is always demonstrated when the study group is compared with a control group consisting of women receiving standard care available to obstetricians in the United States. The authors expect that there will always be arguments regarding whether the monitor or the nurse contributes most to preterm birth reduction. Even when the alerts of detected contractions or patient-reported symptoms are sounded, the issue of prompt and effective medical intervention will always be hotly debated. The appropriate research design that tests HUAM while allowing various diagnostic and treatment modalities that physicians employ around the United States must be individualized. Physicians must make the decision, based on the evidence, regarding whether or not this system would benefit their patients. While investigators argue about research designs and statistical analyses, physicians simply want the best outcomes for their patients, which is what women and the whole of society also want. Based on the available evidence, it is clear that when the comprehensive system of HUAM is used appropriately in the right patients, everyone benefits.