A comparison of fetal abdominal circumference measurements and Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of small‐for‐dates babies and fetal compromise
A total of 145 pregnancies clinically suspected of being small‐for‐dates was studied at presentation with a single measurement of the fetal abdominal circumference and Doppler studies of the umbilical and arcuate arteries. The abdominal circumference measurement gave the best prediction of the small...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 1989-07, Vol.96 (7), p.803-808 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 808 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | 803 |
| container_title | BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology |
| container_volume | 96 |
| creator | CHAMBERS, S. E. HOSKTNS, P. R. HADDAD, N. G. JOHNSTONE, F. D. McDICKEN, W. N. MUIR, B. B. |
| description | A total of 145 pregnancies clinically suspected of being small‐for‐dates was studied at presentation with a single measurement of the fetal abdominal circumference and Doppler studies of the umbilical and arcuate arteries. The abdominal circumference measurement gave the best prediction of the small‐for‐gestational‐age (SGA) baby (sensitivity 73%, umbilical artery sensitivity 47%, arcuate artery sensitivity 29%). The umbilical artery measurement gave the best prediction of antenatal fetal compromise; the performance of the tests was compared for a fixed sensitivity of 100% (i. e. all cases of antenatal compromise would be detected), the specificity of the umbilical artery measurement was 77%, abdominal circumference measurement 12% and arcuate artery measurement 2%. In our data, umbilical artery studies were not a sensitive predictor of the SGA baby but they did give an accurate prediction of the potentially compromised SGA fetus. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03319.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79156909</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>79156909</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3993-ae9bd15d933fa6750b3ff123b6feb68ab7d44ccfd4c057f83ee67beaf13870f93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVUctu1TAQtRColMInIFlIsEuw45uHWSCV8lalbmBtje2x8JXzwE7UdscnsOID-RIcEpU1XtgjnzNzjuYQ8oyzkufz8ljyQ8sLVlddyWUny1kzIbgsb-6R0zvo_t-aFUxU3UPyKKUjY7ypmDghJ1XTSCmqU_LrnJqxnyD6NA50dNThDIGCtmPvh1wZH83SO4w4GKQ9Qloi9jjMicJg6dtxmgJGuoQ5QhqX_OUHOn9DOkW03sx-G5t6COH3j59ujPm2MGOiGrTHbcymujqJWTfhY_LAQUj4ZH_PyNf3775cfCwurz58uji_LIzI_gtAqS2vrRTCQdPWTAvneCV041A3HejWHg7GOHswrG5dJxCbViM4LrqWOSnOyIttbtb9vmCaVVY3GAIMOC5JtZLXjWQr8dVGNHFMKaJTU_Q9xFvFmVpDUUe1bl6tm1drKGoPRd3k5qe7yqJ7tHetewoZf77jkAwEF2EwPv1TkJWsOlln3uuNd-0D3v6HA_Xm81WX6z9v9q_6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>79156909</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of fetal abdominal circumference measurements and Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of small‐for‐dates babies and fetal compromise</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>CHAMBERS, S. E. ; HOSKTNS, P. R. ; HADDAD, N. G. ; JOHNSTONE, F. D. ; McDICKEN, W. N. ; MUIR, B. B.</creator><creatorcontrib>CHAMBERS, S. E. ; HOSKTNS, P. R. ; HADDAD, N. G. ; JOHNSTONE, F. D. ; McDICKEN, W. N. ; MUIR, B. B.</creatorcontrib><description>A total of 145 pregnancies clinically suspected of being small‐for‐dates was studied at presentation with a single measurement of the fetal abdominal circumference and Doppler studies of the umbilical and arcuate arteries. The abdominal circumference measurement gave the best prediction of the small‐for‐gestational‐age (SGA) baby (sensitivity 73%, umbilical artery sensitivity 47%, arcuate artery sensitivity 29%). The umbilical artery measurement gave the best prediction of antenatal fetal compromise; the performance of the tests was compared for a fixed sensitivity of 100% (i. e. all cases of antenatal compromise would be detected), the specificity of the umbilical artery measurement was 77%, abdominal circumference measurement 12% and arcuate artery measurement 2%. In our data, umbilical artery studies were not a sensitive predictor of the SGA baby but they did give an accurate prediction of the potentially compromised SGA fetus.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1470-0328</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0306-5456</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-0528</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-215X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03319.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 2669932</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJOGAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; Biological and medical sciences ; Birth Weight ; Female ; Fetal Growth Retardation - diagnosis ; Fetus - anatomy & histology ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Infant, Newborn ; Infant, Small for Gestational Age ; Management. Prenatal diagnosis ; Medical sciences ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy. Fetus. Placenta ; Prenatal Diagnosis - methods ; Ultrasonography ; Umbilical Arteries - anatomy & histology</subject><ispartof>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 1989-07, Vol.96 (7), p.803-808</ispartof><rights>1991 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3993-ae9bd15d933fa6750b3ff123b6feb68ab7d44ccfd4c057f83ee67beaf13870f93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3993-ae9bd15d933fa6750b3ff123b6feb68ab7d44ccfd4c057f83ee67beaf13870f93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1471-0528.1989.tb03319.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1471-0528.1989.tb03319.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=19292895$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2669932$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>CHAMBERS, S. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOSKTNS, P. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HADDAD, N. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JOHNSTONE, F. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDICKEN, W. N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MUIR, B. B.</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of fetal abdominal circumference measurements and Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of small‐for‐dates babies and fetal compromise</title><title>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</title><addtitle>Br J Obstet Gynaecol</addtitle><description>A total of 145 pregnancies clinically suspected of being small‐for‐dates was studied at presentation with a single measurement of the fetal abdominal circumference and Doppler studies of the umbilical and arcuate arteries. The abdominal circumference measurement gave the best prediction of the small‐for‐gestational‐age (SGA) baby (sensitivity 73%, umbilical artery sensitivity 47%, arcuate artery sensitivity 29%). The umbilical artery measurement gave the best prediction of antenatal fetal compromise; the performance of the tests was compared for a fixed sensitivity of 100% (i. e. all cases of antenatal compromise would be detected), the specificity of the umbilical artery measurement was 77%, abdominal circumference measurement 12% and arcuate artery measurement 2%. In our data, umbilical artery studies were not a sensitive predictor of the SGA baby but they did give an accurate prediction of the potentially compromised SGA fetus.</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Birth Weight</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fetal Growth Retardation - diagnosis</subject><subject>Fetus - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant, Newborn</subject><subject>Infant, Small for Gestational Age</subject><subject>Management. Prenatal diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy. Fetus. Placenta</subject><subject>Prenatal Diagnosis - methods</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Umbilical Arteries - anatomy & histology</subject><issn>1470-0328</issn><issn>0306-5456</issn><issn>1471-0528</issn><issn>1365-215X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1989</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqVUctu1TAQtRColMInIFlIsEuw45uHWSCV8lalbmBtje2x8JXzwE7UdscnsOID-RIcEpU1XtgjnzNzjuYQ8oyzkufz8ljyQ8sLVlddyWUny1kzIbgsb-6R0zvo_t-aFUxU3UPyKKUjY7ypmDghJ1XTSCmqU_LrnJqxnyD6NA50dNThDIGCtmPvh1wZH83SO4w4GKQ9Qloi9jjMicJg6dtxmgJGuoQ5QhqX_OUHOn9DOkW03sx-G5t6COH3j59ujPm2MGOiGrTHbcymujqJWTfhY_LAQUj4ZH_PyNf3775cfCwurz58uji_LIzI_gtAqS2vrRTCQdPWTAvneCV041A3HejWHg7GOHswrG5dJxCbViM4LrqWOSnOyIttbtb9vmCaVVY3GAIMOC5JtZLXjWQr8dVGNHFMKaJTU_Q9xFvFmVpDUUe1bl6tm1drKGoPRd3k5qe7yqJ7tHetewoZf77jkAwEF2EwPv1TkJWsOlln3uuNd-0D3v6HA_Xm81WX6z9v9q_6</recordid><startdate>198907</startdate><enddate>198907</enddate><creator>CHAMBERS, S. E.</creator><creator>HOSKTNS, P. R.</creator><creator>HADDAD, N. G.</creator><creator>JOHNSTONE, F. D.</creator><creator>McDICKEN, W. N.</creator><creator>MUIR, B. B.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Blackwell</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198907</creationdate><title>A comparison of fetal abdominal circumference measurements and Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of small‐for‐dates babies and fetal compromise</title><author>CHAMBERS, S. E. ; HOSKTNS, P. R. ; HADDAD, N. G. ; JOHNSTONE, F. D. ; McDICKEN, W. N. ; MUIR, B. B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3993-ae9bd15d933fa6750b3ff123b6feb68ab7d44ccfd4c057f83ee67beaf13870f93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1989</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Birth Weight</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fetal Growth Retardation - diagnosis</topic><topic>Fetus - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant, Newborn</topic><topic>Infant, Small for Gestational Age</topic><topic>Management. Prenatal diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy. Fetus. Placenta</topic><topic>Prenatal Diagnosis - methods</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Umbilical Arteries - anatomy & histology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>CHAMBERS, S. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOSKTNS, P. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HADDAD, N. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JOHNSTONE, F. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McDICKEN, W. N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MUIR, B. B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>CHAMBERS, S. E.</au><au>HOSKTNS, P. R.</au><au>HADDAD, N. G.</au><au>JOHNSTONE, F. D.</au><au>McDICKEN, W. N.</au><au>MUIR, B. B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of fetal abdominal circumference measurements and Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of small‐for‐dates babies and fetal compromise</atitle><jtitle>BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Obstet Gynaecol</addtitle><date>1989-07</date><risdate>1989</risdate><volume>96</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>803</spage><epage>808</epage><pages>803-808</pages><issn>1470-0328</issn><issn>0306-5456</issn><eissn>1471-0528</eissn><eissn>1365-215X</eissn><coden>BJOGAS</coden><abstract>A total of 145 pregnancies clinically suspected of being small‐for‐dates was studied at presentation with a single measurement of the fetal abdominal circumference and Doppler studies of the umbilical and arcuate arteries. The abdominal circumference measurement gave the best prediction of the small‐for‐gestational‐age (SGA) baby (sensitivity 73%, umbilical artery sensitivity 47%, arcuate artery sensitivity 29%). The umbilical artery measurement gave the best prediction of antenatal fetal compromise; the performance of the tests was compared for a fixed sensitivity of 100% (i. e. all cases of antenatal compromise would be detected), the specificity of the umbilical artery measurement was 77%, abdominal circumference measurement 12% and arcuate artery measurement 2%. In our data, umbilical artery studies were not a sensitive predictor of the SGA baby but they did give an accurate prediction of the potentially compromised SGA fetus.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>2669932</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03319.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1470-0328 |
| ispartof | BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 1989-07, Vol.96 (7), p.803-808 |
| issn | 1470-0328 0306-5456 1471-0528 1365-215X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79156909 |
| source | Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Abdomen Biological and medical sciences Birth Weight Female Fetal Growth Retardation - diagnosis Fetus - anatomy & histology Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans Infant, Newborn Infant, Small for Gestational Age Management. Prenatal diagnosis Medical sciences Pregnancy Pregnancy. Fetus. Placenta Prenatal Diagnosis - methods Ultrasonography Umbilical Arteries - anatomy & histology |
| title | A comparison of fetal abdominal circumference measurements and Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of small‐for‐dates babies and fetal compromise |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T23%3A27%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20fetal%20abdominal%20circumference%20measurements%20and%20Doppler%20ultrasound%20in%20the%20prediction%20of%20small%E2%80%90for%E2%80%90dates%20babies%20and%20fetal%20compromise&rft.jtitle=BJOG%20:%20an%20international%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynaecology&rft.au=CHAMBERS,%20S.%20E.&rft.date=1989-07&rft.volume=96&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=803&rft.epage=808&rft.pages=803-808&rft.issn=1470-0328&rft.eissn=1471-0528&rft.coden=BJOGAS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03319.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E79156909%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=79156909&rft_id=info:pmid/2669932&rfr_iscdi=true |