超声波估算胎儿体重:一式三份的平均测量值比单次测量值更准确吗?

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 ACOUSTICS
Vadim Sheiman MD, Aviv Frenkel MD, Noa Glick MD, Josef Tovbin MD, Ortal Neeman MD, Eran Barzilay MD, PhD
{"title":"超声波估算胎儿体重:一式三份的平均测量值比单次测量值更准确吗?","authors":"Vadim Sheiman MD,&nbsp;Aviv Frenkel MD,&nbsp;Noa Glick MD,&nbsp;Josef Tovbin MD,&nbsp;Ortal Neeman MD,&nbsp;Eran Barzilay MD, PhD","doi":"10.1002/jum.16545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To assess whether, and to what extent, performing triplicate measurements can improve accuracy of estimation of fetal weight (EFW) compared to single measurements.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This was a prospective study conducted at a single medical center. A total of 100 term parturients with an anticipated delivery within 72 hours were recruited for EFW measurements. All examinations were done with adherence to the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) guidelines. EFW was calculated using the Hadlock formula. Triplicate measurements from three different images were obtained for each parameter and the averaged values were used for clinical purposes. EFW calculated using average measurements was compared to EFW calculated using the first measurements.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There was a small but significant improvement in EFW when using averaged measurements compared to single measurements (mean improvement 34 ± 105 g, <i>P</i> = .002). Deviance from birthweight in single measurements was significantly higher compared to averaged measurements (median deviance 198 versus 148 g, respectively, <i>P</i> = .005). This difference was more pronounced when assessing the 75th centile (348 versus 282 g, respectively).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Using triplicate measurements instead of single measurements when performing EFW confers a small, but statistically significant, improvement to EFW accuracy. Using triplicate measurements for assessing EFW should be thus considered, especially in cases suspected of growth disorders.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17563,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":"43 11","pages":"2147-2152"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jum.16545","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasonic Estimation of Fetal Weight: Are Averaged Triplicate Measurements More Accurate Than Single Measurements?\",\"authors\":\"Vadim Sheiman MD,&nbsp;Aviv Frenkel MD,&nbsp;Noa Glick MD,&nbsp;Josef Tovbin MD,&nbsp;Ortal Neeman MD,&nbsp;Eran Barzilay MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jum.16545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To assess whether, and to what extent, performing triplicate measurements can improve accuracy of estimation of fetal weight (EFW) compared to single measurements.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This was a prospective study conducted at a single medical center. A total of 100 term parturients with an anticipated delivery within 72 hours were recruited for EFW measurements. All examinations were done with adherence to the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) guidelines. EFW was calculated using the Hadlock formula. Triplicate measurements from three different images were obtained for each parameter and the averaged values were used for clinical purposes. EFW calculated using average measurements was compared to EFW calculated using the first measurements.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>There was a small but significant improvement in EFW when using averaged measurements compared to single measurements (mean improvement 34 ± 105 g, <i>P</i> = .002). Deviance from birthweight in single measurements was significantly higher compared to averaged measurements (median deviance 198 versus 148 g, respectively, <i>P</i> = .005). This difference was more pronounced when assessing the 75th centile (348 versus 282 g, respectively).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Using triplicate measurements instead of single measurements when performing EFW confers a small, but statistically significant, improvement to EFW accuracy. Using triplicate measurements for assessing EFW should be thus considered, especially in cases suspected of growth disorders.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17563,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine\",\"volume\":\"43 11\",\"pages\":\"2147-2152\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jum.16545\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jum.16545\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ACOUSTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jum.16545","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要评估与单次测量相比,进行一式三份的测量是否能提高胎儿体重(EFW)估算的准确性,以及提高的程度:这是一项在一家医疗中心进行的前瞻性研究。方法:这是一项在一家医疗中心进行的前瞻性研究,共招募了 100 名预产期在 72 小时内的足月孕妇进行 EFW 测量。所有检查均遵照国际妇产科超声学会(ISUOG)指南进行。EFW使用哈德洛克公式计算。每项参数均从三张不同的图像中获得一式三份的测量值,并将平均值用于临床目的。将使用平均测量值计算的 EFW 与使用第一次测量值计算的 EFW 进行比较:结果:与单次测量相比,使用平均测量值计算的婴儿出生体重有微小但显著的改善(平均改善 34 ± 105 克,P = .002)。单次测量的出生体重偏差明显高于平均测量(偏差中位数分别为 198 克和 148 克,P = .005)。在评估第 75 百分位数时,这种差异更为明显(分别为 348 克和 282 克):结论:使用一式三份的测量结果而非单份测量结果来进行婴儿血压测量,可使婴儿血压测量的准确性略有提高,但在统计学上具有显著意义。因此,应考虑使用一式三份的测量结果来评估 EFW,尤其是在怀疑有生长障碍的病例中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Ultrasonic Estimation of Fetal Weight: Are Averaged Triplicate Measurements More Accurate Than Single Measurements?

Ultrasonic Estimation of Fetal Weight: Are Averaged Triplicate Measurements More Accurate Than Single Measurements?

Objective

To assess whether, and to what extent, performing triplicate measurements can improve accuracy of estimation of fetal weight (EFW) compared to single measurements.

Methods

This was a prospective study conducted at a single medical center. A total of 100 term parturients with an anticipated delivery within 72 hours were recruited for EFW measurements. All examinations were done with adherence to the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) guidelines. EFW was calculated using the Hadlock formula. Triplicate measurements from three different images were obtained for each parameter and the averaged values were used for clinical purposes. EFW calculated using average measurements was compared to EFW calculated using the first measurements.

Results

There was a small but significant improvement in EFW when using averaged measurements compared to single measurements (mean improvement 34 ± 105 g, P = .002). Deviance from birthweight in single measurements was significantly higher compared to averaged measurements (median deviance 198 versus 148 g, respectively, P = .005). This difference was more pronounced when assessing the 75th centile (348 versus 282 g, respectively).

Conclusions

Using triplicate measurements instead of single measurements when performing EFW confers a small, but statistically significant, improvement to EFW accuracy. Using triplicate measurements for assessing EFW should be thus considered, especially in cases suspected of growth disorders.

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
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
205
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (JUM) is dedicated to the rapid, accurate publication of original articles dealing with all aspects of medical ultrasound, particularly its direct application to patient care but also relevant basic science, advances in instrumentation, and biological effects. The journal is an official publication of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and publishes articles in a variety of categories, including Original Research papers, Review Articles, Pictorial Essays, Technical Innovations, Case Series, Letters to the Editor, and more, from an international bevy of countries in a continual effort to showcase and promote advances in the ultrasound community. Represented through these efforts are a wide variety of disciplines of ultrasound, including, but not limited to: -Basic Science- Breast Ultrasound- Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound- Dermatology- Echocardiography- Elastography- Emergency Medicine- Fetal Echocardiography- Gastrointestinal Ultrasound- General and Abdominal Ultrasound- Genitourinary Ultrasound- Gynecologic Ultrasound- Head and Neck Ultrasound- High Frequency Clinical and Preclinical Imaging- Interventional-Intraoperative Ultrasound- Musculoskeletal Ultrasound- Neurosonology- Obstetric Ultrasound- Ophthalmologic Ultrasound- Pediatric Ultrasound- Point-of-Care Ultrasound- Public Policy- Superficial Structures- Therapeutic Ultrasound- Ultrasound Education- Ultrasound in Global Health- Urologic Ultrasound- Vascular Ultrasound
×
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