以超声波扫描为标准参考,比较帕金评分和新巴拉德评分在新生儿胎龄评估中的应用

A. Pak, Inst Med Sci, Sohail Shahzad, U. Khan, Itrat Fatima, Taqi Hasan, Wajeeha Amber
{"title":"以超声波扫描为标准参考,比较帕金评分和新巴拉德评分在新生儿胎龄评估中的应用","authors":"A. Pak, Inst Med Sci, Sohail Shahzad, U. Khan, Itrat Fatima, Taqi Hasan, Wajeeha Amber","doi":"10.48036/apims.v13i4.955","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To compare the assessment of gestational age (GA) in newborns using the Parkin Scoring and the New Ballard Scoring methods with the Ultrasound Scan Method as the Standard Reference, conducted at a peripheral military setup. \nMethodology: A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted at the Pediatrics department of Combined Military Hospital (CMH), Abbottabad from July 2019 to June 2020. A total of 102 newborns were recruited from the CMH Nursery. GA was assessed using ultrasound scan, Parkin Score (PS), and the New Ballard Score (NBS). Pearson correlation coefficient statistics were calculated to evaluate the strength of associations among the three methods. The significance level (p value) was set at 0.05. \nResults: The study included 47 (46.1%) females and 55 (53.9%) males. The highest GA (days) was calculated by ultrasound scan (268.76 ± 0.83), followed by PS GA (266.65 ± 1.00) and NBS (264.38 ± 1.05). There was no significant difference in GA assessment between PS and the ultrasound scan (2.32 ± 1.37 days; p = 0.208). The GA assessment between NBS and the ultrasound scan was found to be significant (4.38 ± 1.37 days; p = 0.004). However, this difference is not clinically significant. The NBS and PS GA assessment had a strong positive correlation (Pearson Coefficient = 0.80). \nConclusions: The PS is a reliable method for assessing GA in newborns and is comparable to the NBS. Further research with a larger sample size should be conducted to validate these findings.","PeriodicalId":184398,"journal":{"name":"Annals of PIMS-Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University","volume":"111 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Parkin Score and New Ballard Score for Gestational Age Assessment in Newborns with Ultrasound Scan as the Standard Reference\",\"authors\":\"A. Pak, Inst Med Sci, Sohail Shahzad, U. Khan, Itrat Fatima, Taqi Hasan, Wajeeha Amber\",\"doi\":\"10.48036/apims.v13i4.955\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To compare the assessment of gestational age (GA) in newborns using the Parkin Scoring and the New Ballard Scoring methods with the Ultrasound Scan Method as the Standard Reference, conducted at a peripheral military setup. \\nMethodology: A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted at the Pediatrics department of Combined Military Hospital (CMH), Abbottabad from July 2019 to June 2020. A total of 102 newborns were recruited from the CMH Nursery. GA was assessed using ultrasound scan, Parkin Score (PS), and the New Ballard Score (NBS). Pearson correlation coefficient statistics were calculated to evaluate the strength of associations among the three methods. The significance level (p value) was set at 0.05. \\nResults: The study included 47 (46.1%) females and 55 (53.9%) males. The highest GA (days) was calculated by ultrasound scan (268.76 ± 0.83), followed by PS GA (266.65 ± 1.00) and NBS (264.38 ± 1.05). There was no significant difference in GA assessment between PS and the ultrasound scan (2.32 ± 1.37 days; p = 0.208). The GA assessment between NBS and the ultrasound scan was found to be significant (4.38 ± 1.37 days; p = 0.004). However, this difference is not clinically significant. The NBS and PS GA assessment had a strong positive correlation (Pearson Coefficient = 0.80). \\nConclusions: The PS is a reliable method for assessing GA in newborns and is comparable to the NBS. Further research with a larger sample size should be conducted to validate these findings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":184398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of PIMS-Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University\",\"volume\":\"111 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of PIMS-Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.48036/apims.v13i4.955\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of PIMS-Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48036/apims.v13i4.955","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较使用帕金评分法、新巴拉德评分法和超声波扫描法评估新生儿胎龄(GA)的情况。研究方法2019 年 7 月至 2020 年 6 月在阿伯塔巴德联合军事医院(CMH)儿科开展了一项描述性横断面研究。共从 CMH 育婴室招募了 102 名新生儿。采用超声波扫描、帕金评分(Parkin Score,PS)和新巴拉德评分(New Ballard Score,NBS)对GA进行评估。计算了皮尔逊相关系数统计,以评估三种方法之间的关联强度。显著性水平(P 值)定为 0.05。研究结果研究对象包括 47 名女性(46.1%)和 55 名男性(53.9%)。超声波扫描计算的 GA(天数)最高(268.76 ± 0.83),其次是 PS GA(266.65 ± 1.00)和 NBS(264.38 ± 1.05)。PS 与超声扫描的 GA 评估差异不大(2.32 ± 1.37 天;P = 0.208)。NBS 和超声波扫描之间的 GA 评估差异显著(4.38 ± 1.37 天;p = 0.004)。然而,这一差异并无临床意义。NBS 和 PS GA 评估具有很强的正相关性(Pearson Coefficient = 0.80)。结论PS 是评估新生儿 GA 的可靠方法,与 NBS 具有可比性。应进行样本量更大的进一步研究,以验证这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of Parkin Score and New Ballard Score for Gestational Age Assessment in Newborns with Ultrasound Scan as the Standard Reference
Objective: To compare the assessment of gestational age (GA) in newborns using the Parkin Scoring and the New Ballard Scoring methods with the Ultrasound Scan Method as the Standard Reference, conducted at a peripheral military setup. Methodology: A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted at the Pediatrics department of Combined Military Hospital (CMH), Abbottabad from July 2019 to June 2020. A total of 102 newborns were recruited from the CMH Nursery. GA was assessed using ultrasound scan, Parkin Score (PS), and the New Ballard Score (NBS). Pearson correlation coefficient statistics were calculated to evaluate the strength of associations among the three methods. The significance level (p value) was set at 0.05. Results: The study included 47 (46.1%) females and 55 (53.9%) males. The highest GA (days) was calculated by ultrasound scan (268.76 ± 0.83), followed by PS GA (266.65 ± 1.00) and NBS (264.38 ± 1.05). There was no significant difference in GA assessment between PS and the ultrasound scan (2.32 ± 1.37 days; p = 0.208). The GA assessment between NBS and the ultrasound scan was found to be significant (4.38 ± 1.37 days; p = 0.004). However, this difference is not clinically significant. The NBS and PS GA assessment had a strong positive correlation (Pearson Coefficient = 0.80). Conclusions: The PS is a reliable method for assessing GA in newborns and is comparable to the NBS. Further research with a larger sample size should be conducted to validate these findings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hepatoprotective Potential of Micronutrients Against Methotrexate-Induced Hepatotoxicity in Experimental Mice Model Impact of 3D virtual reality on teaching and learning human anatomy among undergraduate students Comparison of Effects of Preserved and Preservative Free Anti-Glaucoma Drugs in Causing Dry Eyes Psoriasis Area and Severity Index and its Correlation with Liver Function Test Comparison of Hemodynamic Effect of Propofol and Ketofol during Induction of Anaesthesia in General Surgery Patients
×
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