Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/67984
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorP. Thongnoken_US
dc.contributor.authorT. Tongsongen_US
dc.contributor.authorP. Jatavanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-02T15:15:06Z-
dc.date.available2020-04-02T15:15:06Z-
dc.date.issued2019-01-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn01252208en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85075316207en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85075316207&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/67984-
dc.description.abstract© JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF THAILAND | 2019. Objective: To compare the accuracy of fetal weight estimation on admission before delivery between subjective assessment, objective clinical assessment, and 2D-ultrasonography (2D-US) assessment in pregnancy with diabetes mellitus (DM). Materials and Methods: Pregnancy with DM admitted for delivery at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital between March 24, 2017 and August 7, 2018, were prospectively recruited. Inclusion criteria were a term, singleton pregnancy with overt or gestational DM without other underlying diseases, no smoking, and no emergency condition for immediate delivery. Fetal weight estimation by subjective assessment (physical examination), objective assessment (a formula using multiple parameters including BMI, fundal height, maternal abdominal circumference, and parity), and 2D-US were performed on admission for delivery. Actual birth weight (BW) was measured within 30 minutes after birth. Accuracy in predicting actual BW by various methods was calculated and expressed as intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), mean error, mean percentage error, and percentage of estimate within 10% of the actual BW. Results: Ninety-six women (gestational DM 92 and overt DM 4) were recruited. The 2D-US (Hadlock 4) was most accurate for estimation (ICC 0.896) and conversely objective assessment was least accurate (ICC 0.610). In predicting actual BW (±10%), 2D-US and subjective assessment were significantly superior to objective assessment (p=0.001 and p=0.017; respectively), whereas the accuracy of 2D-US and subjective assessment was comparable (76.4% versus 66.7%; p=0.151). Conclusion: In singleton pregnancy with DM, the fetal weight estimation with 2D-US (Hadlock 4) had more accuracy than subjective assessment (in terms of ICC), but no significant difference of accuracy between the two methods. The authors suggest using 2D-US as an adjunct in estimation of fetal weight among pregnancies with DM.en_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleComparisons of the accuracy of fetal weight estimation between various ultrasound models and clinical assessments in term pregnancies complicated by diabetes mellitusen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleJournal of the Medical Association of Thailanden_US
article.volume102en_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.