Clinical Versus Sonographic Estimation of Foetal Weight in Southwest Nigeria
A prospective study was conducted at Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, between 3 January and 31May 2004, to compare the accuracy of clinical and ultrasonographic estimation of foetal weight at term. One hundred pregnant women who fulfilled the inclusion criteria...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of health, population and nutrition population and nutrition, 2007-03, Vol.25 (1), p.14-23 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 23 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 14 |
| container_title | Journal of health, population and nutrition |
| container_volume | 25 |
| creator | Shittu, Akinola S Kuti, Oluwafemi Orji, Ernest O Makinde, Niyi O Ogunniyi, Solomon O Ayoola, Oluwagbemiga O Sule, Salami S |
| description | A prospective study was conducted at Obafemi Awolowo University
Teaching Hospital Complex, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, between 3 January and
31May 2004, to compare the accuracy of clinical and ultrasonographic
estimation of foetal weight at term. One hundred pregnant women who
fulfilled the inclusion criteria had their foetal weight estimated in
dependently using clinical and ultrasonographic methods.Accuracy was
determined by percentage error, absolute percentage error,and
proportion of estimates within 10% of actual birth-weight (birth-weight
of +10%). Statistical analysis was done using the paired t-test, the
Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the chi-square test. The study sample
had an actual average birthweight of 3,255+622 (range 2,150-4,950) g.
Overall, the clinical method overestimated birth-weight, while
ultrasound underestimated it. The mean absolute percentage error of the
clinical method was smaller than that of the sonographic method, and
the number of estimates within 10% of actual birthweight for the
clinical method (70%) was greater than for the sonographic method
(68%); the difference was not statistically significant. In thelow
birth-weight( |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3013260</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A212107084</galeid><jstor_id>23499448</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A212107084</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b516t-888e084c6fe8c27642a48888bf667fe270d2e10ebd047154fc1279cb654ff09f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9km1rFDEQxxex2LP6EZRFodIXK0l2Nw9vhHK0WjgUrA8vQzY3u5tjLzk3WR--vVOuPbsikkDCzG8mM__Mg2zBiGAFLWn9MFtQTnhBlBLH2eMYN4QwRSR7lB1TwWmtCFlkq-XgvLNmyL_AGKeYXwcfutHsemfzi5jc1iQXfB7a_DJAQu4ruK5PufOITqn_ATHl710HozNPsqPWDBGe3p4n2efLi0_Ld8Xqw9ur5fmqaGrKUyGlBCIry1uQlgleMVOhTTYt56IFJsiaASXQrEklaF21ljKhbMPx2hLVlifZm33e3dRsYW3Bp9EMejditeMvHYzTc493ve7Cd10SWjJOMMGr2wRj-DZhB3rrooVhMB7CFLVkrFKSUIXk6X9JQbgSNRUIvvgL3IRp9CiDZqi7KlXNEHq5hzozgHa-DVievcmozxlllAjUBanX_6BwrWHrbPDQOrTPAs5mAcgk-Jk6M8Wor64_ztnTe2wPZkh9DMN088txDj6_L_JB3bvZQeDZHtjEFMaDn5WVUlUl_7TRuIBDBgfC4qjoO2PvceOLpCx_Aw4b18g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>202993952</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical Versus Sonographic Estimation of Foetal Weight in Southwest Nigeria</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Bioline International</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Shittu, Akinola S ; Kuti, Oluwafemi ; Orji, Ernest O ; Makinde, Niyi O ; Ogunniyi, Solomon O ; Ayoola, Oluwagbemiga O ; Sule, Salami S</creator><creatorcontrib>Shittu, Akinola S ; Kuti, Oluwafemi ; Orji, Ernest O ; Makinde, Niyi O ; Ogunniyi, Solomon O ; Ayoola, Oluwagbemiga O ; Sule, Salami S</creatorcontrib><description>A prospective study was conducted at Obafemi Awolowo University
Teaching Hospital Complex, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, between 3 January and
31May 2004, to compare the accuracy of clinical and ultrasonographic
estimation of foetal weight at term. One hundred pregnant women who
fulfilled the inclusion criteria had their foetal weight estimated in
dependently using clinical and ultrasonographic methods.Accuracy was
determined by percentage error, absolute percentage error,and
proportion of estimates within 10% of actual birth-weight (birth-weight
of +10%). Statistical analysis was done using the paired t-test, the
Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the chi-square test. The study sample
had an actual average birthweight of 3,255+622 (range 2,150-4,950) g.
Overall, the clinical method overestimated birth-weight, while
ultrasound underestimated it. The mean absolute percentage error of the
clinical method was smaller than that of the sonographic method, and
the number of estimates within 10% of actual birthweight for the
clinical method (70%) was greater than for the sonographic method
(68%); the difference was not statistically significant. In thelow
birth-weight(<<2,500g)group, the mean errors of sonographic
estimates were significantly smaller, and significantly more
sonographic estimates (66.7%) were within 10% of actual birth-weight
than those of the clinical method (41.7%). No statistically significant
difference was observed in all the measures of accuracy for the normal
birth-weight range of 2,500-<4,000 g and in the macrosonic group
(≥4,000 g), except that, while the ultrasonographic method
underestimated birth-weight, the clinical method overestimated it.
Clinical estimation of birth-weight is as accurate as
routineultrasonographic estimation, except in low-birth-weight babies.
Therefore, when the clinical method suggests weight smaller than 2,500
g, subsequent sonographic estimation is recommended to yield a better
prediction and to further evaluate foetal well-being.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1606-0997</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2072-1315</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17615900</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bangladesh: icddr,b</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Adult ; Birth size ; Birth Weight ; Chi-Square Test ; Comparative studies ; Delivery ; Demographic aspects ; Developing countries ; Diabetes complications ; Diagnosis ; Error rates ; Estimate reliability ; Estimation methods ; Female ; Fetal Weight ; Fetuses ; Foetal weight ; Humans ; Infant, Newborn ; LDCs ; Measurement ; Nigeria ; Obesity in children ; Obstetrics ; Original Papers ; Physical Examination - methods ; Physical Examination - standards ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Pregnancy ; Pregnant women ; Prevention ; Prospective Studies ; Reproducibility of Results ; Risk factors ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Statistical significance ; Teaching hospitals ; Ultra wideband technologies ; Ultrasonics ; Ultrasonography ; Ultrasonography, Prenatal - methods ; Ultrasonography, Prenatal - standards ; Ultrasound imaging ; Wellbeing</subject><ispartof>Journal of health, population and nutrition, 2007-03, Vol.25 (1), p.14-23</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2007 - ICDDR,B: Centre for Health and Population Research</rights><rights>Copyright © 2007 International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2007 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright Intenational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh Mar 2007</rights><rights>INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DIARRHOEAL DISEASE RESEARCH, BANGLADESH 2007</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23499448$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/23499448$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,803,885,12845,30998,30999,53790,53792,58016,58249,79197</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17615900$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shittu, Akinola S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuti, Oluwafemi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orji, Ernest O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makinde, Niyi O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ogunniyi, Solomon O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ayoola, Oluwagbemiga O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sule, Salami S</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical Versus Sonographic Estimation of Foetal Weight in Southwest Nigeria</title><title>Journal of health, population and nutrition</title><addtitle>J Health Popul Nutr</addtitle><description>A prospective study was conducted at Obafemi Awolowo University
Teaching Hospital Complex, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, between 3 January and
31May 2004, to compare the accuracy of clinical and ultrasonographic
estimation of foetal weight at term. One hundred pregnant women who
fulfilled the inclusion criteria had their foetal weight estimated in
dependently using clinical and ultrasonographic methods.Accuracy was
determined by percentage error, absolute percentage error,and
proportion of estimates within 10% of actual birth-weight (birth-weight
of +10%). Statistical analysis was done using the paired t-test, the
Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the chi-square test. The study sample
had an actual average birthweight of 3,255+622 (range 2,150-4,950) g.
Overall, the clinical method overestimated birth-weight, while
ultrasound underestimated it. The mean absolute percentage error of the
clinical method was smaller than that of the sonographic method, and
the number of estimates within 10% of actual birthweight for the
clinical method (70%) was greater than for the sonographic method
(68%); the difference was not statistically significant. In thelow
birth-weight(<<2,500g)group, the mean errors of sonographic
estimates were significantly smaller, and significantly more
sonographic estimates (66.7%) were within 10% of actual birth-weight
than those of the clinical method (41.7%). No statistically significant
difference was observed in all the measures of accuracy for the normal
birth-weight range of 2,500-<4,000 g and in the macrosonic group
(≥4,000 g), except that, while the ultrasonographic method
underestimated birth-weight, the clinical method overestimated it.
Clinical estimation of birth-weight is as accurate as
routineultrasonographic estimation, except in low-birth-weight babies.
Therefore, when the clinical method suggests weight smaller than 2,500
g, subsequent sonographic estimation is recommended to yield a better
prediction and to further evaluate foetal well-being.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Birth size</subject><subject>Birth Weight</subject><subject>Chi-Square Test</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Delivery</subject><subject>Demographic aspects</subject><subject>Developing countries</subject><subject>Diabetes complications</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Error rates</subject><subject>Estimate reliability</subject><subject>Estimation methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fetal Weight</subject><subject>Fetuses</subject><subject>Foetal weight</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant, Newborn</subject><subject>LDCs</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Nigeria</subject><subject>Obesity in children</subject><subject>Obstetrics</subject><subject>Original Papers</subject><subject>Physical Examination - methods</subject><subject>Physical Examination - standards</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnant women</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Statistical significance</subject><subject>Teaching hospitals</subject><subject>Ultra wideband technologies</subject><subject>Ultrasonics</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Prenatal - methods</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Prenatal - standards</subject><subject>Ultrasound imaging</subject><subject>Wellbeing</subject><issn>1606-0997</issn><issn>2072-1315</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>RBI</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9km1rFDEQxxex2LP6EZRFodIXK0l2Nw9vhHK0WjgUrA8vQzY3u5tjLzk3WR--vVOuPbsikkDCzG8mM__Mg2zBiGAFLWn9MFtQTnhBlBLH2eMYN4QwRSR7lB1TwWmtCFlkq-XgvLNmyL_AGKeYXwcfutHsemfzi5jc1iQXfB7a_DJAQu4ruK5PufOITqn_ATHl710HozNPsqPWDBGe3p4n2efLi0_Ld8Xqw9ur5fmqaGrKUyGlBCIry1uQlgleMVOhTTYt56IFJsiaASXQrEklaF21ljKhbMPx2hLVlifZm33e3dRsYW3Bp9EMejditeMvHYzTc493ve7Cd10SWjJOMMGr2wRj-DZhB3rrooVhMB7CFLVkrFKSUIXk6X9JQbgSNRUIvvgL3IRp9CiDZqi7KlXNEHq5hzozgHa-DVievcmozxlllAjUBanX_6BwrWHrbPDQOrTPAs5mAcgk-Jk6M8Wor64_ztnTe2wPZkh9DMN088txDj6_L_JB3bvZQeDZHtjEFMaDn5WVUlUl_7TRuIBDBgfC4qjoO2PvceOLpCx_Aw4b18g</recordid><startdate>20070301</startdate><enddate>20070301</enddate><creator>Shittu, Akinola S</creator><creator>Kuti, Oluwafemi</creator><creator>Orji, Ernest O</creator><creator>Makinde, Niyi O</creator><creator>Ogunniyi, Solomon O</creator><creator>Ayoola, Oluwagbemiga O</creator><creator>Sule, Salami S</creator><general>icddr,b</general><general>ICDDR,B: Centre for Health and Population Research</general><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><general>International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh</general><scope>RBI</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070301</creationdate><title>Clinical Versus Sonographic Estimation of Foetal Weight in Southwest Nigeria</title><author>Shittu, Akinola S ; Kuti, Oluwafemi ; Orji, Ernest O ; Makinde, Niyi O ; Ogunniyi, Solomon O ; Ayoola, Oluwagbemiga O ; Sule, Salami S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b516t-888e084c6fe8c27642a48888bf667fe270d2e10ebd047154fc1279cb654ff09f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Birth size</topic><topic>Birth Weight</topic><topic>Chi-Square Test</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Delivery</topic><topic>Demographic aspects</topic><topic>Developing countries</topic><topic>Diabetes complications</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Error rates</topic><topic>Estimate reliability</topic><topic>Estimation methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fetal Weight</topic><topic>Fetuses</topic><topic>Foetal weight</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant, Newborn</topic><topic>LDCs</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Nigeria</topic><topic>Obesity in children</topic><topic>Obstetrics</topic><topic>Original Papers</topic><topic>Physical Examination - methods</topic><topic>Physical Examination - standards</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnant women</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Statistical significance</topic><topic>Teaching hospitals</topic><topic>Ultra wideband technologies</topic><topic>Ultrasonics</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Prenatal - methods</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Prenatal - standards</topic><topic>Ultrasound imaging</topic><topic>Wellbeing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shittu, Akinola S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuti, Oluwafemi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orji, Ernest O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makinde, Niyi O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ogunniyi, Solomon O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ayoola, Oluwagbemiga O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sule, Salami S</creatorcontrib><collection>Bioline International</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Career & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of health, population and nutrition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shittu, Akinola S</au><au>Kuti, Oluwafemi</au><au>Orji, Ernest O</au><au>Makinde, Niyi O</au><au>Ogunniyi, Solomon O</au><au>Ayoola, Oluwagbemiga O</au><au>Sule, Salami S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical Versus Sonographic Estimation of Foetal Weight in Southwest Nigeria</atitle><jtitle>Journal of health, population and nutrition</jtitle><addtitle>J Health Popul Nutr</addtitle><date>2007-03-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>14</spage><epage>23</epage><pages>14-23</pages><issn>1606-0997</issn><eissn>2072-1315</eissn><abstract>A prospective study was conducted at Obafemi Awolowo University
Teaching Hospital Complex, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, between 3 January and
31May 2004, to compare the accuracy of clinical and ultrasonographic
estimation of foetal weight at term. One hundred pregnant women who
fulfilled the inclusion criteria had their foetal weight estimated in
dependently using clinical and ultrasonographic methods.Accuracy was
determined by percentage error, absolute percentage error,and
proportion of estimates within 10% of actual birth-weight (birth-weight
of +10%). Statistical analysis was done using the paired t-test, the
Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the chi-square test. The study sample
had an actual average birthweight of 3,255+622 (range 2,150-4,950) g.
Overall, the clinical method overestimated birth-weight, while
ultrasound underestimated it. The mean absolute percentage error of the
clinical method was smaller than that of the sonographic method, and
the number of estimates within 10% of actual birthweight for the
clinical method (70%) was greater than for the sonographic method
(68%); the difference was not statistically significant. In thelow
birth-weight(<<2,500g)group, the mean errors of sonographic
estimates were significantly smaller, and significantly more
sonographic estimates (66.7%) were within 10% of actual birth-weight
than those of the clinical method (41.7%). No statistically significant
difference was observed in all the measures of accuracy for the normal
birth-weight range of 2,500-<4,000 g and in the macrosonic group
(≥4,000 g), except that, while the ultrasonographic method
underestimated birth-weight, the clinical method overestimated it.
Clinical estimation of birth-weight is as accurate as
routineultrasonographic estimation, except in low-birth-weight babies.
Therefore, when the clinical method suggests weight smaller than 2,500
g, subsequent sonographic estimation is recommended to yield a better
prediction and to further evaluate foetal well-being.</abstract><cop>Bangladesh</cop><pub>icddr,b</pub><pmid>17615900</pmid><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1606-0997 |
| ispartof | Journal of health, population and nutrition, 2007-03, Vol.25 (1), p.14-23 |
| issn | 1606-0997 2072-1315 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3013260 |
| source | MEDLINE; PubMed Central Open Access; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Bioline International; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | Accuracy Adult Birth size Birth Weight Chi-Square Test Comparative studies Delivery Demographic aspects Developing countries Diabetes complications Diagnosis Error rates Estimate reliability Estimation methods Female Fetal Weight Fetuses Foetal weight Humans Infant, Newborn LDCs Measurement Nigeria Obesity in children Obstetrics Original Papers Physical Examination - methods Physical Examination - standards Predictive Value of Tests Pregnancy Pregnant women Prevention Prospective Studies Reproducibility of Results Risk factors Sensitivity and Specificity Statistical significance Teaching hospitals Ultra wideband technologies Ultrasonics Ultrasonography Ultrasonography, Prenatal - methods Ultrasonography, Prenatal - standards Ultrasound imaging Wellbeing |
| title | Clinical Versus Sonographic Estimation of Foetal Weight in Southwest Nigeria |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T10%3A02%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20Versus%20Sonographic%20Estimation%20of%20Foetal%20Weight%20in%20Southwest%20Nigeria&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20health,%20population%20and%20nutrition&rft.au=Shittu,%20Akinola%20S&rft.date=2007-03-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=14&rft.epage=23&rft.pages=14-23&rft.issn=1606-0997&rft.eissn=2072-1315&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA212107084%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=202993952&rft_id=info:pmid/17615900&rft_galeid=A212107084&rft_jstor_id=23499448&rfr_iscdi=true |