We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical and ultrasound prediction of macrosomia in diabetic pregnancy.
British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1996 August
OBJECTIVE: To study prospectively the prediction power, at different gestations, of clinical and ultrasound measurements for fetal size in diabetic pregnancy.
SETTING: A large combined obstetric diabetic clinic in a teaching hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and eighty-one pregnancies in which women had scans at least two of three specific time points and who were delivered of singletons after 34 weeks: 73% were pre-gestational insulin-dependent diabetics, the others were pre-gestational White class A or gestational diabetics.
INTERVENTIONS: Clinical estimates of fundal height and fetal size and ultrasound estimates of abdominal circumference and head circumference were routinely carried out at gestational ages of 28, 34 and 38 weeks or before delivery.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Standardised birthweight, corrected for gestation and parity. The relation with clinical and ultrasound measurements was investigated using multiple linear regression and the capability of the measurements to predict macrosomic births (> 95th centile of normals) using receiver-operator characteristic curves.
RESULTS: All measurements are poor predictors of eventual standardised birthweight. Prediction improves with closeness to delivery. Prediction is significantly improved by adding ultrasound to clinical information, but at 34 weeks or later this only contributes 8% of the variance. There is no difference in the prediction power for macrosomia between clinical and ultrasound measurements.
CONCLUSIONS: Even regular serial scanning and clinical examination will not always diagnose the macrosomic fetus in diabetic pregnancy. In our hands, clinical examination is as predictive as ultrasound measurements. Ultrasound does add to clinical prediction power but only to a small extent. Ultrasound should be used in a selected way, as defined by clinical findings, and with recognition and understanding of the errors and biases involved.
SETTING: A large combined obstetric diabetic clinic in a teaching hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and eighty-one pregnancies in which women had scans at least two of three specific time points and who were delivered of singletons after 34 weeks: 73% were pre-gestational insulin-dependent diabetics, the others were pre-gestational White class A or gestational diabetics.
INTERVENTIONS: Clinical estimates of fundal height and fetal size and ultrasound estimates of abdominal circumference and head circumference were routinely carried out at gestational ages of 28, 34 and 38 weeks or before delivery.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Standardised birthweight, corrected for gestation and parity. The relation with clinical and ultrasound measurements was investigated using multiple linear regression and the capability of the measurements to predict macrosomic births (> 95th centile of normals) using receiver-operator characteristic curves.
RESULTS: All measurements are poor predictors of eventual standardised birthweight. Prediction improves with closeness to delivery. Prediction is significantly improved by adding ultrasound to clinical information, but at 34 weeks or later this only contributes 8% of the variance. There is no difference in the prediction power for macrosomia between clinical and ultrasound measurements.
CONCLUSIONS: Even regular serial scanning and clinical examination will not always diagnose the macrosomic fetus in diabetic pregnancy. In our hands, clinical examination is as predictive as ultrasound measurements. Ultrasound does add to clinical prediction power but only to a small extent. Ultrasound should be used in a selected way, as defined by clinical findings, and with recognition and understanding of the errors and biases involved.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app