临床方法与超声检查胎儿体重的测定及与实际出生体重的比较

Q3 Nursing
Raziyeh Mossayebnezhad, M. Niknami, S. Pakseresht, E. K. Leili
{"title":"临床方法与超声检查胎儿体重的测定及与实际出生体重的比较","authors":"Raziyeh Mossayebnezhad, M. Niknami, S. Pakseresht, E. K. Leili","doi":"10.32598/jhnm.31.4.2055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Assessment of fetal weight is a vital factor in antenatal care, not only in the management of labor and delivery but also in identifying fetal weight disorders. Objective: This study compares the accuracy of clinical methods and ultrasonography in Estimating Fetal Weight (EFW) with Actual Birth Weight (ABW) in term pregnant women. Materials and Methods: This diagnostic test evaluation study was performed on 247 single-term pregnant women admitted to an educational, therapeutic hospital in Rasht City, Iran. In this study, abdominal palpation, Johnson’s formula, Insler’s formula, and ultrasonography were used to estimate fetal weight. One-sample t-test, the Chi-square, and the Bland-Altman plot were used to compare the diagnostic value of fetal weight estimation methods. The accuracy of tests was estimated based on sensitivity and specificity in fetal weight groups (below 2500 g, 2500- 4000 g, and above 4000 g) by the Bland-Altman plot. Results: The participating pregnant women had a Mean±SD age of 28.86±4.24 years, body mass index of 32.98±6.0 kg/m2, and gestational age of 39±1.04 wk. Their Mean±SD actual birth weight was 3343.352±432.799 gr, Also, the Mean±SD birth weight found by abdominal palpation was 3371.053±345.561 gr, Mean±SD birth weight by Johnson’s formula 3041.206 ±411 gr, by Insler’s formula 3556.316±531.567 gr, and by ultrasonography 3294.28±380.09 gr, Based on the one-sample t-test, the abdominal palpation had the lowest (P=0.261), and the Insler’s formula (P=0.001) had the highest difference with the actual birth weight. Regarding the fetal weight groups, Insler’s formula (96.33%) was highly accurate in Low Birth Weight (LBW), but abdominal palpation (91.09%) was more accurate in normal weight and macrosomia (94.72%) groups. There was a significant difference between clinical methods with ABW (P=0.026). Conclusion: Clinical methods are accessible, affordable, and available and can estimate fetal weight in developing countries, especially in our country.","PeriodicalId":36020,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Holistic Nursing and Midwifery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimation of Fetal Weight by Clinical Methods and Ultrasonography and Comparing With Actual Birth Weight\",\"authors\":\"Raziyeh Mossayebnezhad, M. Niknami, S. Pakseresht, E. K. Leili\",\"doi\":\"10.32598/jhnm.31.4.2055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Assessment of fetal weight is a vital factor in antenatal care, not only in the management of labor and delivery but also in identifying fetal weight disorders. Objective: This study compares the accuracy of clinical methods and ultrasonography in Estimating Fetal Weight (EFW) with Actual Birth Weight (ABW) in term pregnant women. Materials and Methods: This diagnostic test evaluation study was performed on 247 single-term pregnant women admitted to an educational, therapeutic hospital in Rasht City, Iran. In this study, abdominal palpation, Johnson’s formula, Insler’s formula, and ultrasonography were used to estimate fetal weight. One-sample t-test, the Chi-square, and the Bland-Altman plot were used to compare the diagnostic value of fetal weight estimation methods. The accuracy of tests was estimated based on sensitivity and specificity in fetal weight groups (below 2500 g, 2500- 4000 g, and above 4000 g) by the Bland-Altman plot. Results: The participating pregnant women had a Mean±SD age of 28.86±4.24 years, body mass index of 32.98±6.0 kg/m2, and gestational age of 39±1.04 wk. Their Mean±SD actual birth weight was 3343.352±432.799 gr, Also, the Mean±SD birth weight found by abdominal palpation was 3371.053±345.561 gr, Mean±SD birth weight by Johnson’s formula 3041.206 ±411 gr, by Insler’s formula 3556.316±531.567 gr, and by ultrasonography 3294.28±380.09 gr, Based on the one-sample t-test, the abdominal palpation had the lowest (P=0.261), and the Insler’s formula (P=0.001) had the highest difference with the actual birth weight. Regarding the fetal weight groups, Insler’s formula (96.33%) was highly accurate in Low Birth Weight (LBW), but abdominal palpation (91.09%) was more accurate in normal weight and macrosomia (94.72%) groups. There was a significant difference between clinical methods with ABW (P=0.026). Conclusion: Clinical methods are accessible, affordable, and available and can estimate fetal weight in developing countries, especially in our country.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36020,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Holistic Nursing and Midwifery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Holistic Nursing and Midwifery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32598/jhnm.31.4.2055\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Holistic Nursing and Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32598/jhnm.31.4.2055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:评估胎儿体重是产前护理的一个重要因素,不仅在分娩和分娩管理方面,而且在识别胎儿体重障碍方面。目的:比较临床方法和超声检查对足月孕妇胎儿体重(EFW)和实际出生体重(ABW)的准确性。材料和方法:这项诊断性测试评估研究对伊朗拉什特市一家教育治疗医院收治的247名足月孕妇进行。在这项研究中,腹部触诊、Johnson公式、Insler公式和超声检查被用于估计胎儿体重。使用单样本t检验、卡方检验和Bland-Altman图来比较胎儿体重估计方法的诊断价值。通过Bland-Altman图,根据胎儿体重组(2500克以下、2500-4000克和4000克以上)的敏感性和特异性来估计测试的准确性。结果:参与研究的孕妇平均±SD年龄为28.86±4.24岁,体重指数为32.98±6.0 kg/m2,孕龄为39±1.04周。他们的平均±SD实际出生体重为3343.352±432.799 gr。此外,腹部触诊发现的平均±SD卡出生体重为3371.053±345.561 gr,Johnson公式的平均±SD出生体重为3041.206±411 gr,Insler公式的平均值为3556.316±531.567 gr,超声波检查的平均±标准体重为3294.28±380.09 gr,Insler公式与实际出生体重的差异最大(P=0.001)。关于胎儿体重组,Insler公式(96.33%)在低出生体重组中高度准确,但腹部触诊(91.09%)在正常体重组和巨大儿组(94.72%)中更准确。ABW的临床方法之间存在显著差异(P=0.026)。结论:在发展中国家,尤其是在我国,临床方法是可获得的、可负担的和可用的,并且可以估计胎儿体重。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Estimation of Fetal Weight by Clinical Methods and Ultrasonography and Comparing With Actual Birth Weight
Introduction: Assessment of fetal weight is a vital factor in antenatal care, not only in the management of labor and delivery but also in identifying fetal weight disorders. Objective: This study compares the accuracy of clinical methods and ultrasonography in Estimating Fetal Weight (EFW) with Actual Birth Weight (ABW) in term pregnant women. Materials and Methods: This diagnostic test evaluation study was performed on 247 single-term pregnant women admitted to an educational, therapeutic hospital in Rasht City, Iran. In this study, abdominal palpation, Johnson’s formula, Insler’s formula, and ultrasonography were used to estimate fetal weight. One-sample t-test, the Chi-square, and the Bland-Altman plot were used to compare the diagnostic value of fetal weight estimation methods. The accuracy of tests was estimated based on sensitivity and specificity in fetal weight groups (below 2500 g, 2500- 4000 g, and above 4000 g) by the Bland-Altman plot. Results: The participating pregnant women had a Mean±SD age of 28.86±4.24 years, body mass index of 32.98±6.0 kg/m2, and gestational age of 39±1.04 wk. Their Mean±SD actual birth weight was 3343.352±432.799 gr, Also, the Mean±SD birth weight found by abdominal palpation was 3371.053±345.561 gr, Mean±SD birth weight by Johnson’s formula 3041.206 ±411 gr, by Insler’s formula 3556.316±531.567 gr, and by ultrasonography 3294.28±380.09 gr, Based on the one-sample t-test, the abdominal palpation had the lowest (P=0.261), and the Insler’s formula (P=0.001) had the highest difference with the actual birth weight. Regarding the fetal weight groups, Insler’s formula (96.33%) was highly accurate in Low Birth Weight (LBW), but abdominal palpation (91.09%) was more accurate in normal weight and macrosomia (94.72%) groups. There was a significant difference between clinical methods with ABW (P=0.026). Conclusion: Clinical methods are accessible, affordable, and available and can estimate fetal weight in developing countries, especially in our country.
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
Journal of Holistic Nursing and Midwifery
Journal of Holistic Nursing and Midwifery Nursing-Maternity and Midwifery
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
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