出生体重不一致的双胞胎腹围不一致与估计胎儿体重不一致的关联调查

Q2 Medicine Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran Pub Date : 2024-03-19 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.47176/mjiri.38.30
Mojgan Barati, Mahin Najafian, Najmieh Saadati, Maryam Motefares
{"title":"出生体重不一致的双胞胎腹围不一致与估计胎儿体重不一致的关联调查","authors":"Mojgan Barati, Mahin Najafian, Najmieh Saadati, Maryam Motefares","doi":"10.47176/mjiri.38.30","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Twin pregnancy is associated with a high risk of mortality and morbidity. It is necessary to estimate the weight difference of the fetuses with a reliable method to prevent possible complications. This study was conducted to compare the association between the Estimated fetal weight (EFW) discord-ance and the Abdominal Circumference (AC) discordance with birth weight in twins.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a descriptive-analytical and retrospective study. The statistical population was all twin pregnant mothers referred to Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahvaz from 2017 to 2019. The sample size was determined with a census (540 people). Based on AC , the size of head circumference (HC), femur length (FL), and the Biparietal Diameter (BPD), EFW was calculated. Then the EFW Dis-cordance and AC Discordance were calculated and compared with the birth weight. Data were analyzed using SPSS18. Unpaired, Two-Tailed T-test and Pearson correlation test were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed that the mean discordance of fetal weight in twin pregnancies in the EFW method was 9.25%, in the AC method was 9.89% and finally, at birth, was 10.72%. The correla-tion of the weight difference between the two embryos in the AC method with the time of birth (r = 0.922 and <i>P</i> < 0.001) was higher than in the EFW method with the time of birth (r = 0.69 and <i>P</i> < 0.001) and finally, it was found that in detecting the discordance more than 20% and 25%, AC diagnostic power was good, but EFW was moderate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Therefore, to evaluate the weight and weight difference in twin embryos, the AC method has the appropriate accuracy and compatibility. Another major prospective study to evaluate the diagnostic performance of AC and EFW mismatch based on gestational age at scan, incision point, and maternal and placental characteristics to determine true ultrasound diagnostic accuracy in predict-ing growth mismatch in twin pregnancy and optimal post-case management option is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":18361,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11129283/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigation of the Association of Abdominal Circumference Discord-ance and Estimated Fetal Weight Discordance in Twins with Birth Weight Discordance.\",\"authors\":\"Mojgan Barati, Mahin Najafian, Najmieh Saadati, Maryam Motefares\",\"doi\":\"10.47176/mjiri.38.30\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Twin pregnancy is associated with a high risk of mortality and morbidity. It is necessary to estimate the weight difference of the fetuses with a reliable method to prevent possible complications. This study was conducted to compare the association between the Estimated fetal weight (EFW) discord-ance and the Abdominal Circumference (AC) discordance with birth weight in twins.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a descriptive-analytical and retrospective study. The statistical population was all twin pregnant mothers referred to Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahvaz from 2017 to 2019. The sample size was determined with a census (540 people). Based on AC , the size of head circumference (HC), femur length (FL), and the Biparietal Diameter (BPD), EFW was calculated. Then the EFW Dis-cordance and AC Discordance were calculated and compared with the birth weight. Data were analyzed using SPSS18. Unpaired, Two-Tailed T-test and Pearson correlation test were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed that the mean discordance of fetal weight in twin pregnancies in the EFW method was 9.25%, in the AC method was 9.89% and finally, at birth, was 10.72%. The correla-tion of the weight difference between the two embryos in the AC method with the time of birth (r = 0.922 and <i>P</i> < 0.001) was higher than in the EFW method with the time of birth (r = 0.69 and <i>P</i> < 0.001) and finally, it was found that in detecting the discordance more than 20% and 25%, AC diagnostic power was good, but EFW was moderate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Therefore, to evaluate the weight and weight difference in twin embryos, the AC method has the appropriate accuracy and compatibility. Another major prospective study to evaluate the diagnostic performance of AC and EFW mismatch based on gestational age at scan, incision point, and maternal and placental characteristics to determine true ultrasound diagnostic accuracy in predict-ing growth mismatch in twin pregnancy and optimal post-case management option is needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11129283/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.38.30\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47176/mjiri.38.30","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:双胎妊娠具有很高的死亡率和发病率风险。有必要用可靠的方法估计胎儿的体重差异,以预防可能出现的并发症。本研究旨在比较估计胎儿体重(EFW)不一致和腹围(AC)不一致与双胞胎出生体重之间的关系:这是一项描述性分析和回顾性研究。统计人群为 2017 年至 2019 年期间转诊至阿瓦士伊玛目霍梅尼医院的所有双胞胎孕产妇。样本量通过人口普查(540 人)确定。根据 AC、头围(HC)、股骨长度(FL)和双顶径(BPD)的大小,计算出 EFW。然后计算 EFW 不一致性和 AC 不一致性,并与出生体重进行比较。数据使用 SPSS18 进行分析。采用非配对双尾 T 检验和皮尔逊相关检验:结果显示,双胎妊娠胎儿体重的平均不一致性在 EFW 法中为 9.25%,在 AC 法中为 9.89%,最后在出生时为 10.72%。AC法中两个胚胎的体重差值与出生时间的相关性(r = 0.922,P < 0.001)高于EFW法中两个胚胎的体重差值与出生时间的相关性(r = 0.69,P < 0.001),最后发现,在检测超过20%和25%的不一致性时,AC的诊断能力较好,但EFW的诊断能力一般:因此,在评估双胎胚胎的体重和体重差异时,AC 方法具有适当的准确性和兼容性。需要进行另一项大型前瞻性研究,根据扫描时的胎龄、切口点、母体和胎盘特征评估AC和EFW不匹配的诊断性能,以确定超声诊断在预测双胎妊娠生长不匹配方面的真正准确性以及最佳的病例后期处理方案。
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
Investigation of the Association of Abdominal Circumference Discord-ance and Estimated Fetal Weight Discordance in Twins with Birth Weight Discordance.

Background: Twin pregnancy is associated with a high risk of mortality and morbidity. It is necessary to estimate the weight difference of the fetuses with a reliable method to prevent possible complications. This study was conducted to compare the association between the Estimated fetal weight (EFW) discord-ance and the Abdominal Circumference (AC) discordance with birth weight in twins.

Methods: This was a descriptive-analytical and retrospective study. The statistical population was all twin pregnant mothers referred to Imam Khomeini Hospital in Ahvaz from 2017 to 2019. The sample size was determined with a census (540 people). Based on AC , the size of head circumference (HC), femur length (FL), and the Biparietal Diameter (BPD), EFW was calculated. Then the EFW Dis-cordance and AC Discordance were calculated and compared with the birth weight. Data were analyzed using SPSS18. Unpaired, Two-Tailed T-test and Pearson correlation test were used.

Results: The results showed that the mean discordance of fetal weight in twin pregnancies in the EFW method was 9.25%, in the AC method was 9.89% and finally, at birth, was 10.72%. The correla-tion of the weight difference between the two embryos in the AC method with the time of birth (r = 0.922 and P < 0.001) was higher than in the EFW method with the time of birth (r = 0.69 and P < 0.001) and finally, it was found that in detecting the discordance more than 20% and 25%, AC diagnostic power was good, but EFW was moderate.

Conclusion: Therefore, to evaluate the weight and weight difference in twin embryos, the AC method has the appropriate accuracy and compatibility. Another major prospective study to evaluate the diagnostic performance of AC and EFW mismatch based on gestational age at scan, incision point, and maternal and placental characteristics to determine true ultrasound diagnostic accuracy in predict-ing growth mismatch in twin pregnancy and optimal post-case management option is needed.

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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Effect of Silymarin on Expression of micro-RNA-21 and Matrix Metalloproteinase (MMP) 2 and 9 and Tissue Inhibitors of Matrix Metalloproteinase (TIMP) 1 and 2 in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cell Line (HepG2). Comparing the Effectiveness of Two Kinds of Reading Interventions on Reading Outcomes in Third to Fifth Grade Farsi Speaker Students with Dyslexia: An Exploratory Study. A Narrative Review of Vocational Rehabilitation in People with Spinal Cord Injury in Different Countries. Prevalence of Ponticulus Posticus among Orthodontic Patients of Iranian Population by Lateral Cephalogram. Determining Predictive Power of Base Excess in Comparison with SOFA Score for Predicting Mortality in ICU 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