Clinical and patient estimation of fetal weight vs. ultrasound estimation.

J. D. Baum, D. Gussman, J. Wirth
{"title":"Clinical and patient estimation of fetal weight vs. ultrasound estimation.","authors":"J. D. Baum, D. Gussman, J. Wirth","doi":"10.1097/00006254-200209000-00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nTo compare clinical and patient estimation of fetal weight to ultrasound estimation.\n\n\nSTUDY DESIGN\nProspective study of clinical, patient and ultrasound estimation of fetal weight at term.\n\n\nRESULTS\nA total of 200 pregnant women participated. There was no statistically significant difference between clinical and sonographic estimates of fetal weight: of the estimates, 64.0% were within 10% of the actual birth weight vs. 62.5% (P > .2). There was no statistically significant difference between patient and sonographic estimates of fetal weight: of the estimates, 53.5% were within 10% of the actual birth weight vs. 62.5%, respectively (P < .1). Senior resident clinical and sonographic estimates of fetal weight were superior to junior resident estimates: 75.2% of clinical estimates were within 10% of the actual birth weight vs. 59.2% (P < .03), and 73.1% of sonographic estimates were within 10% of the actual birth weight vs. 58.3% (P < .05). Nulliparous and multiparous patients were equally accurate in estimating fetal weight: 48.1% of estimates were within 10% of birth weight vs. 57.4% (P > .2).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nSonographic estimation of fetal weight offers no advantage over clinical or patient estimation of fetal weight at term. Senior resident clinical and sonographic estimates are superior to junior resident estimates. Parity has no effect on patient accuracy in estimating fetal weight.","PeriodicalId":192418,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of reproductive medicine","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"87","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of reproductive medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-200209000-00007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 87

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To compare clinical and patient estimation of fetal weight to ultrasound estimation. STUDY DESIGN Prospective study of clinical, patient and ultrasound estimation of fetal weight at term. RESULTS A total of 200 pregnant women participated. There was no statistically significant difference between clinical and sonographic estimates of fetal weight: of the estimates, 64.0% were within 10% of the actual birth weight vs. 62.5% (P > .2). There was no statistically significant difference between patient and sonographic estimates of fetal weight: of the estimates, 53.5% were within 10% of the actual birth weight vs. 62.5%, respectively (P < .1). Senior resident clinical and sonographic estimates of fetal weight were superior to junior resident estimates: 75.2% of clinical estimates were within 10% of the actual birth weight vs. 59.2% (P < .03), and 73.1% of sonographic estimates were within 10% of the actual birth weight vs. 58.3% (P < .05). Nulliparous and multiparous patients were equally accurate in estimating fetal weight: 48.1% of estimates were within 10% of birth weight vs. 57.4% (P > .2). CONCLUSION Sonographic estimation of fetal weight offers no advantage over clinical or patient estimation of fetal weight at term. Senior resident clinical and sonographic estimates are superior to junior resident estimates. Parity has no effect on patient accuracy in estimating fetal weight.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胎儿体重的临床和患者估计与超声估计。
目的比较临床和患者对胎儿体重的估计与超声估计。研究设计:对临床、患者和超声评估胎儿足月体重的前瞻性研究。结果共纳入孕妇200例。胎儿体重的临床估计值与超声估计值之间无统计学差异:64.0%的估计值与实际出生体重相差在10%以内,62.5% (P > 2)。患者胎儿体重估计值与超声胎儿体重估计值之间无统计学差异:53.5%的估计值与实际出生体重相差10%以内,而62.5%的估计值差异有统计学意义(P < 0.1)。老年住院医生对胎儿体重的临床和超声估计优于初级住院医生的估计:75.2%的临床估计在实际出生体重的10%以内,而59.2% (P < 0.03), 73.1%的超声估计在实际出生体重的10%以内,而58.3% (P < 0.05)。未产和多产患者对胎儿体重的估计同样准确:48.1%的估计在出生体重的10%以内,而57.4%的估计在出生体重的10%以内(P > 2)。结论超声对胎儿体重的估计与临床或患者对足月胎儿体重的估计没有优势。老年住院医生的临床和超声估计优于初级住院医生的估计。胎次对患者估计胎儿体重的准确性没有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Clinical Risk Factors Do Not Predict Shoulder Dystocia. Timing of Referral to the New England Trophoblastic Disease Center: Does Referral with Molar Pregnancy Versus Postmolar Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia Affect Outcomes? Quantitative Assessment of Endometrial Volume and Uterine Vascularity and Pregnancy Outcome in Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer Cycles. Birth Outcomes by Infertility Diagnosis Analyses of the Massachusetts Outcomes Study of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (MOSART). Blood Contaminated Amniotic Fluid and the Lamellar Body Count Fetal Lung Maturity Test.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1