临床胎儿体重与超声检查胎儿体重的比较

Tahmida Firdousi, T. Begum, F. Hafez, Nur Mohammad, Ashfaq Ahmad, A. R. Amin
{"title":"临床胎儿体重与超声检查胎儿体重的比较","authors":"Tahmida Firdousi, T. Begum, F. Hafez, Nur Mohammad, Ashfaq Ahmad, A. R. Amin","doi":"10.3329/jcamr.v6i2.42978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Comparison of foetal weight detection between clinical examination and ultrasonography is very important. Objective: The purpose of the present study was to compare the detection of foetal weight between clinical examination and ultrasonography. \nMethodology: This cross-sectional comparative study was carried out in the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at Rajshahi Medical Hospital Hospital (RMCH), Rajshahi, Bangladesh from July 2012 to June 2014 for a period of 2(two) years. Pregnant women with known gestational age at term (38 to 40 weeks of pregnancy), singleton pregnancy with longitudinal lie were included in this study. The clinical estimation of foetal weight was done. Foetal weight was estimated by using Johnson’s formula. The patient was then taken to Dept. of Radiology & Imaging, RMCH. Ultrasonographic estimation of foetal weight was done from estimation of foetal abdominal circumference (AC), biparietal diameter (BPD) and foetal femur length (FL). All the weights measured by ultrasound were recorded in the data sheet. \nResult: A total number of 245 pregnant women in term pregnancy were recruited as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. Table 1 shows age distribution of the study subjects. The mean age was 26.42 (SD ± 4.46). Low birth weight was found 12(4.9%) cases in ultrasonographic examination and 14(5.7%) cases in clinical measurement. Overweight was found 13(5.2%) cases in ultrasonographic examination and 16(6.5%) cases in clinical measurement. The mean with SD of birth weight among the study population were 3283.27±461.05 gram and 2870.41±424.84 gram in clinical and Ultrasonographic examination respectively (p < 0.05). \nConclusion: In conclusion clinical estimation of foetal weight is significant differed with the measurement of USG. \nJournal of Current and Advance Medical Research 2019;6(2):92-96","PeriodicalId":15413,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Current and Advance Medical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Clinical Foetal Weight and Ultrasonography Detected Foetal Weight\",\"authors\":\"Tahmida Firdousi, T. Begum, F. Hafez, Nur Mohammad, Ashfaq Ahmad, A. R. Amin\",\"doi\":\"10.3329/jcamr.v6i2.42978\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Comparison of foetal weight detection between clinical examination and ultrasonography is very important. Objective: The purpose of the present study was to compare the detection of foetal weight between clinical examination and ultrasonography. \\nMethodology: This cross-sectional comparative study was carried out in the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at Rajshahi Medical Hospital Hospital (RMCH), Rajshahi, Bangladesh from July 2012 to June 2014 for a period of 2(two) years. Pregnant women with known gestational age at term (38 to 40 weeks of pregnancy), singleton pregnancy with longitudinal lie were included in this study. The clinical estimation of foetal weight was done. Foetal weight was estimated by using Johnson’s formula. The patient was then taken to Dept. of Radiology & Imaging, RMCH. Ultrasonographic estimation of foetal weight was done from estimation of foetal abdominal circumference (AC), biparietal diameter (BPD) and foetal femur length (FL). All the weights measured by ultrasound were recorded in the data sheet. \\nResult: A total number of 245 pregnant women in term pregnancy were recruited as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. Table 1 shows age distribution of the study subjects. The mean age was 26.42 (SD ± 4.46). Low birth weight was found 12(4.9%) cases in ultrasonographic examination and 14(5.7%) cases in clinical measurement. Overweight was found 13(5.2%) cases in ultrasonographic examination and 16(6.5%) cases in clinical measurement. The mean with SD of birth weight among the study population were 3283.27±461.05 gram and 2870.41±424.84 gram in clinical and Ultrasonographic examination respectively (p < 0.05). \\nConclusion: In conclusion clinical estimation of foetal weight is significant differed with the measurement of USG. \\nJournal of Current and Advance Medical Research 2019;6(2):92-96\",\"PeriodicalId\":15413,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Current and Advance Medical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Current and Advance Medical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3329/jcamr.v6i2.42978\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Current and Advance Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3329/jcamr.v6i2.42978","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

背景:临床检查与超声检查胎儿体重的比较具有重要意义。目的:比较临床检查和超声检查对胎儿体重的检测效果。方法:本横断面比较研究于2012年7月至2014年6月在孟加拉国拉杰沙希拉杰沙希医疗医院(RMCH)妇产科进行,为期2年。已知足月孕周(38 - 40周)的孕妇,单胎纵向妊娠的孕妇被纳入本研究。对胎儿体重进行临床估计。胎儿体重是用约翰逊公式估计的。随后,患者被送至RMCH放射与影像科。通过胎儿腹围(AC)、胎儿双顶径(BPD)和胎儿股骨长(FL)的超声估计胎儿体重。所有超声测量的体重都记录在数据表上。结果:按纳入和排除标准共纳入足月妊娠孕妇245例。表1显示了研究对象的年龄分布。平均年龄26.42岁(SD±4.46)。超声检查低出生体重12例(4.9%),临床测量低出生体重14例(5.7%)。超声检查超重13例(5.2%),临床测量超重16例(6.5%)。研究人群出生体重的临床和超声检查平均SD分别为3283.27±461.05 g和2870.41±424.84 g (p < 0.05)。结论:临床对胎儿体重的估计与USG测量有显著差异。现代医学研究进展2019;6(2):92-96
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 Clinical Foetal Weight and Ultrasonography Detected Foetal Weight
Background: Comparison of foetal weight detection between clinical examination and ultrasonography is very important. Objective: The purpose of the present study was to compare the detection of foetal weight between clinical examination and ultrasonography. Methodology: This cross-sectional comparative study was carried out in the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at Rajshahi Medical Hospital Hospital (RMCH), Rajshahi, Bangladesh from July 2012 to June 2014 for a period of 2(two) years. Pregnant women with known gestational age at term (38 to 40 weeks of pregnancy), singleton pregnancy with longitudinal lie were included in this study. The clinical estimation of foetal weight was done. Foetal weight was estimated by using Johnson’s formula. The patient was then taken to Dept. of Radiology & Imaging, RMCH. Ultrasonographic estimation of foetal weight was done from estimation of foetal abdominal circumference (AC), biparietal diameter (BPD) and foetal femur length (FL). All the weights measured by ultrasound were recorded in the data sheet. Result: A total number of 245 pregnant women in term pregnancy were recruited as per inclusion and exclusion criteria. Table 1 shows age distribution of the study subjects. The mean age was 26.42 (SD ± 4.46). Low birth weight was found 12(4.9%) cases in ultrasonographic examination and 14(5.7%) cases in clinical measurement. Overweight was found 13(5.2%) cases in ultrasonographic examination and 16(6.5%) cases in clinical measurement. The mean with SD of birth weight among the study population were 3283.27±461.05 gram and 2870.41±424.84 gram in clinical and Ultrasonographic examination respectively (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In conclusion clinical estimation of foetal weight is significant differed with the measurement of USG. Journal of Current and Advance Medical Research 2019;6(2):92-96
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
Comparison of Miniperc and Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Treatment of Renal Stone: An Open Level Parallel Arm Randomized Control Trial Characteristics of Carotid Artery among Ischemic Heart Disease Patients with or without Diabetes Mellitus Embracing the Potential of Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery: A Path to Hope and Progress Age and Gender Differences with Clinical Presentation of Patients with Histopathological and CT-Scan Confirmed Parapharyngeal Mass Anthropometric Analysis Between Naso Aural Inclination and Their Correlation in Bangladeshi Buddhist Rakhain Ethnic Females
×
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