各种方法估算足月胎儿体重的比较研究及其与实际出生体重的相关性

Q4 Medicine
Anjali Singh, Anjani K. Srivastava, Ankit Singh
{"title":"各种方法估算足月胎儿体重的比较研究及其与实际出生体重的相关性","authors":"Anjali Singh, Anjani K. Srivastava, Ankit Singh","doi":"10.4314/rmj.v80i3.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"
 
 
 INTRODUCTION: Modern obstetrics aims to achieve the best quality of life for both mother and her unborn child. Birth weight is an important predictor of neonatal outcome, and its prenatal estimation plays a significant role in the comprehensive evaluation and management of high- risk pregnancies. This study aims to estimate fetal weight using different clinical methods and ultrasonography and compare these methods with the actual birth weight.
 METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional comparative study of 200 full-term pregnant women admitted to the Northern Railway Central Hospital, New Delhi, between June 2014 and June 2015 was conducted. Patients in whom delivery was anticipated and completed within 1 week were included. Fetal weights were estimated clinically using Insler’s and Johnson’s formula and ultrasound using Hadlock’s formula. Estimates were then compared with actual birth weight. RESULTS: Both the clinical methods showed underestimation of fetal weight, while ultrasound estimation of fetal weight showed overestimation. Clinical methods had a lower average error in fetal weight estimation than ultrasonography methods. Reliability statistics showed a better prediction of fetal weight if all three methods were used in conjunction.
 CONCLUSION: Clinical methods were found to be better than the ultrasonography method for fetal weight estimation. Clinical methods are easy and cost-effective for the patients, so all relevant health workers should be taught how to undertake this skill competently. However, all the methods must be used in conjunction.
 
 
","PeriodicalId":38181,"journal":{"name":"Rwanda Medical Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study of fetal weight estimation by various methods at term and its correlation with the actual birth weight\",\"authors\":\"Anjali Singh, Anjani K. Srivastava, Ankit Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.4314/rmj.v80i3.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"
 
 
 INTRODUCTION: Modern obstetrics aims to achieve the best quality of life for both mother and her unborn child. Birth weight is an important predictor of neonatal outcome, and its prenatal estimation plays a significant role in the comprehensive evaluation and management of high- risk pregnancies. This study aims to estimate fetal weight using different clinical methods and ultrasonography and compare these methods with the actual birth weight.
 METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional comparative study of 200 full-term pregnant women admitted to the Northern Railway Central Hospital, New Delhi, between June 2014 and June 2015 was conducted. Patients in whom delivery was anticipated and completed within 1 week were included. Fetal weights were estimated clinically using Insler’s and Johnson’s formula and ultrasound using Hadlock’s formula. Estimates were then compared with actual birth weight. RESULTS: Both the clinical methods showed underestimation of fetal weight, while ultrasound estimation of fetal weight showed overestimation. Clinical methods had a lower average error in fetal weight estimation than ultrasonography methods. Reliability statistics showed a better prediction of fetal weight if all three methods were used in conjunction.
 CONCLUSION: Clinical methods were found to be better than the ultrasonography method for fetal weight estimation. Clinical methods are easy and cost-effective for the patients, so all relevant health workers should be taught how to undertake this skill competently. However, all the methods must be used in conjunction.
 
 
\",\"PeriodicalId\":38181,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rwanda Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rwanda Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4314/rmj.v80i3.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rwanda Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/rmj.v80i3.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

& # x0D;& # x0D;& # x0D;简介:现代产科旨在为母亲和未出生的孩子实现最好的生活质量。出生体重是新生儿结局的重要预测指标,其产前评估在高危妊娠的综合评估和管理中具有重要意义。本研究旨在通过不同的临床方法和超声检查估计胎儿体重,并将这些方法与实际出生体重进行比较。 方法:对2014年6月至2015年6月在新德里北部铁路中心医院住院的200名足月孕妇进行前瞻性横断面比较研究。预计分娩并在1周内完成的患者被纳入其中。临床使用Insler 's和Johnson 's公式估计胎儿体重,超声使用Hadlock 's公式。然后将估计体重与实际出生体重进行比较。结果:两种临床方法对胎儿体重的估计均偏低,超声对胎儿体重的估计均偏高。临床方法估计胎儿体重的平均误差低于超声方法。可靠性统计显示,如果三种方法联合使用,对胎儿体重的预测效果更好。 结论:临床方法对胎儿体重的估计优于超声法。临床方法对患者来说既简单又经济,因此应教所有相关卫生工作者如何胜任这项技能。然而,所有的方法必须结合使用。 & # x0D;& # x0D;
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative study of fetal weight estimation by various methods at term and its correlation with the actual birth weight
INTRODUCTION: Modern obstetrics aims to achieve the best quality of life for both mother and her unborn child. Birth weight is an important predictor of neonatal outcome, and its prenatal estimation plays a significant role in the comprehensive evaluation and management of high- risk pregnancies. This study aims to estimate fetal weight using different clinical methods and ultrasonography and compare these methods with the actual birth weight. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional comparative study of 200 full-term pregnant women admitted to the Northern Railway Central Hospital, New Delhi, between June 2014 and June 2015 was conducted. Patients in whom delivery was anticipated and completed within 1 week were included. Fetal weights were estimated clinically using Insler’s and Johnson’s formula and ultrasound using Hadlock’s formula. Estimates were then compared with actual birth weight. RESULTS: Both the clinical methods showed underestimation of fetal weight, while ultrasound estimation of fetal weight showed overestimation. Clinical methods had a lower average error in fetal weight estimation than ultrasonography methods. Reliability statistics showed a better prediction of fetal weight if all three methods were used in conjunction. CONCLUSION: Clinical methods were found to be better than the ultrasonography method for fetal weight estimation. Clinical methods are easy and cost-effective for the patients, so all relevant health workers should be taught how to undertake this skill competently. However, all the methods must be used in conjunction.
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
Rwanda Medical Journal
Rwanda Medical Journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊介绍: The Rwanda Medical Journal (RMJ), is a Not-For-Profit scientific, medical, journal that is published entirely online in open-access electronic format. The RMJ is an interdisciplinary research journal for publication of original work in all the major health disciplines. Through a rigorous process of evaluation and peer review, The RMJ strives to publish original works of high quality for a diverse audience of healthcare professionals. The Journal seeks to deepen knowledge and advance scientific discovery to improve the quality of care of patients in Rwanda and internationally.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信