Suppr超能文献

住院医师在分娩期间对胎儿体重进行的临床和超声评估。

Clinical and sonographic estimation of fetal weight performed during labor by residents.

作者信息

Noumi George, Collado-Khoury Fady, Bombard Allan, Julliard Kell, Weiner Zeev

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11220, USA.

出版信息

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 May;192(5):1407-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.043.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to assess the accuracy of both clinical and sonographic estimations of the fetal weight (EFW) performed during the active phase of labor by residents.

METHODS

The study protocol consisted of achieving clinical, followed by sonographic EFW by the admitting resident during the active phase of labor. Patients who had an EFW (clinical or sonographic) within the last 2 weeks were excluded from the study. In addition, the effect of the following variables on the accuracy of the EFW were examined: maternal age, maternal weight and body mass index, parity, the Bishop score before obtaining the EFW, gestational age, birth weight, and the postgraduate year of the examiner. The Pearson correlation, chi2 test, and Student t test were the statistical analyses used. We also calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for clinical and sonographic EFW for detecting macrosomia (birth weight > or = 4000 g).

RESULTS

A total of 192 patients participated in this study. The coefficient of correlation between the clinical and sonographic EFW and the actual birth weight was 0.59 (P < .0001) and 0.65 (P < .0001), respectively. Clinical EFW was correct (within +/-10%) in 72% of the cases and the sonographic EFW was correct (within +/-10%) in 74% of the cases. However, the sensitivity of predicting birth weight of 4 kg or more was only 50% for both clinical and sonographic EFW, with 95% and 97% specificity, respectively. None of the clinical variables that were tested were significantly associated with the accuracy of the EFW.

CONCLUSION

Both clinical and sonographic EFW performed during the active phase of labor by residents correlate with the actual birth weight but have poor sensitivity in detecting macrosomic fetuses. Sonographic EFWs offer no advantage over clinical EFWs.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估住院医师在产程活跃期进行的胎儿体重(EFW)临床估计和超声估计的准确性。

方法

研究方案包括在产程活跃期由住院医师先进行临床胎儿体重估计,随后进行超声胎儿体重估计。过去2周内已有胎儿体重估计值(临床或超声)的患者被排除在研究之外。此外,还研究了以下变量对胎儿体重估计准确性的影响:产妇年龄、产妇体重和体重指数、产次、获取胎儿体重估计值前的 Bishop 评分、孕周、出生体重以及检查者的研究生年级。采用 Pearson 相关性分析、卡方检验和 Student t 检验进行统计分析。我们还计算了临床和超声胎儿体重估计用于检测巨大儿(出生体重≥4000 g)的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。

结果

共有192例患者参与本研究。临床胎儿体重估计值与超声胎儿体重估计值和实际出生体重之间的相关系数分别为0.59(P <.0001)和0.65(P <.0001)。临床胎儿体重估计在72%的病例中正确(在±10%范围内),超声胎儿体重估计在74%的病例中正确(在±10%范围内)。然而,临床和超声胎儿体重估计预测出生体重4 kg及以上的敏感性仅为50%,特异性分别为95%和97%。所检测的临床变量均与胎儿体重估计的准确性无显著相关性。

结论

住院医师在产程活跃期进行的临床和超声胎儿体重估计均与实际出生体重相关,但在检测巨大胎儿方面敏感性较差。超声胎儿体重估计并不比临床胎儿体重估计更具优势。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验