FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2046503793> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2046503793 endingPage "S127" @default.
• W2046503793 startingPage "S127" @default.
• W2046503793 abstract "PurposeEFW accuracy is critical when clinical decisions are based on the sonogram results. In Australia no one formula has been recommended for use across the entire gestation/ birth weight range due to the lack of clinical evidence as to their accuracy. Aims of this study were to assess inter/intra observer error for fetal parameters measurements used to estimate weight and to compare EFW formulae & analyse inter/intra formulae variations for different weight ranges.Material & MethodsMultiple images for measuring femur, BPD, OFD, head & abdominal circumference were collected & measured by 5 observers. Inter/intra observer error = mean deviation calculated as % of mean measurement. Most common EFW formulae were graphed/compared. 121 pregnancies were assessed for fetal size within 7 days of birth & resultant EFW was compared with actual birth weight. % deviation & average random error were calculated across entire weight range. Inter/intra formula for different weight ranges was analysed.ResultsDepending on fetal parameter the inter-observer error ranged from 1.3 to 3.1% & intra-observer error from 1.1 to 1.9%. The accuracy of each EFW formula changed with different weight ranges. For all formulae the highest random error occurred in the macrosomic group.ConclusionConsidering the potential for head moulding, this study suggests, using Hadlock et al (1982) (Formula B), incorporating HC/AC/FL. PurposeEFW accuracy is critical when clinical decisions are based on the sonogram results. In Australia no one formula has been recommended for use across the entire gestation/ birth weight range due to the lack of clinical evidence as to their accuracy. Aims of this study were to assess inter/intra observer error for fetal parameters measurements used to estimate weight and to compare EFW formulae & analyse inter/intra formulae variations for different weight ranges. EFW accuracy is critical when clinical decisions are based on the sonogram results. In Australia no one formula has been recommended for use across the entire gestation/ birth weight range due to the lack of clinical evidence as to their accuracy. Aims of this study were to assess inter/intra observer error for fetal parameters measurements used to estimate weight and to compare EFW formulae & analyse inter/intra formulae variations for different weight ranges. Material & MethodsMultiple images for measuring femur, BPD, OFD, head & abdominal circumference were collected & measured by 5 observers. Inter/intra observer error = mean deviation calculated as % of mean measurement. Most common EFW formulae were graphed/compared. 121 pregnancies were assessed for fetal size within 7 days of birth & resultant EFW was compared with actual birth weight. % deviation & average random error were calculated across entire weight range. Inter/intra formula for different weight ranges was analysed. Multiple images for measuring femur, BPD, OFD, head & abdominal circumference were collected & measured by 5 observers. Inter/intra observer error = mean deviation calculated as % of mean measurement. Most common EFW formulae were graphed/compared. 121 pregnancies were assessed for fetal size within 7 days of birth & resultant EFW was compared with actual birth weight. % deviation & average random error were calculated across entire weight range. Inter/intra formula for different weight ranges was analysed. ResultsDepending on fetal parameter the inter-observer error ranged from 1.3 to 3.1% & intra-observer error from 1.1 to 1.9%. The accuracy of each EFW formula changed with different weight ranges. For all formulae the highest random error occurred in the macrosomic group. Depending on fetal parameter the inter-observer error ranged from 1.3 to 3.1% & intra-observer error from 1.1 to 1.9%. The accuracy of each EFW formula changed with different weight ranges. For all formulae the highest random error occurred in the macrosomic group. ConclusionConsidering the potential for head moulding, this study suggests, using Hadlock et al (1982) (Formula B), incorporating HC/AC/FL. Considering the potential for head moulding, this study suggests, using Hadlock et al (1982) (Formula B), incorporating HC/AC/FL." @default.
• W2046503793 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2046503793 creator A5019916286 @default.
• W2046503793 date "2011-08-01" @default.
• W2046503793 modified "2023-10-03" @default.
• W2046503793 title "Estimating Fetal Weight for Best Clinical Outcome" @default.
• W2046503793 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2011.05.857" @default.
• W2046503793 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2046503793 type Work @default.
• W2046503793 sameAs 2046503793 @default.
• W2046503793 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2046503793 countsByYear W20465037932022 @default.
• W2046503793 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2046503793 hasAuthorship W2046503793A5019916286 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C100253034 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C131872663 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C147583825 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C172680121 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C22679943 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C2779234561 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C2779811377 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C2780704645 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C2993934573 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C46973012 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C66322754 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C73782692 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C100253034 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C105795698 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C121332964 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C126322002 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C131872663 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C147583825 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C172680121 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C22679943 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C2779234561 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C2779811377 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C2780704645 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C2993934573 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C33923547 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C46973012 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C54355233 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C62520636 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C66322754 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C71924100 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C73782692 @default.
• W2046503793 hasConceptScore W2046503793C86803240 @default.
• W2046503793 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W2046503793 hasLocation W20465037931 @default.
• W2046503793 hasOpenAccess W2046503793 @default.
• W2046503793 hasPrimaryLocation W20465037931 @default.
• W2046503793 hasRelatedWork W1967598640 @default.
• W2046503793 hasRelatedWork W1997159078 @default.
• W2046503793 hasRelatedWork W2046503793 @default.
• W2046503793 hasRelatedWork W2099257454 @default.
• W2046503793 hasRelatedWork W2143111304 @default.
• W2046503793 hasRelatedWork W2413280938 @default.
• W2046503793 hasRelatedWork W2474517440 @default.
• W2046503793 hasRelatedWork W2555964298 @default.
• W2046503793 hasRelatedWork W3036464060 @default.
• W2046503793 hasRelatedWork W91550915 @default.
• W2046503793 hasVolume "37" @default.
• W2046503793 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2046503793 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2046503793 magId "2046503793" @default.
• W2046503793 workType "article" @default.