FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W98726030> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W98726030 endingPage "240" @default.
• W98726030 startingPage "239" @default.
• W98726030 abstract "We thank Dr Kreitzer for his continuing communications on shoulder dystocia and comments on our work.We agree that subjective definitions and imperfect record keeping are limitations with most studies on shoulder dystocia; however, we would like to point out an incorrect assumption in the letter. In our study, incidences of shoulder dystocia were not determined by retrospective chart review, which would potentially add recorder bias issues. The diagnosis was recorded prospectively in the delivery record by the delivering clinicians at the time of the birth.Very few centers use the prolonged head-to-body interval as the sole criterion for diagnosing shoulder dystocia. Most use the standard American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists definition. Use of a prolonged interval increases the “observed” rate of shoulder dystocia several-fold to the range of 13.7-16% of vaginal births.1Spong C.Y. Beall M. Rodrigues D. Ross M.G. An objective definition of shoulder dystocia: prolonged head-to-body delivery intervals and/or the use of ancillary obstetric maneuvers.Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 86: 433-436Crossref PubMed Scopus (124) Google Scholar, 2Beall M.H. Spong C. McKay J. Ross M.G. Objective definition of shoulder dystocia: a prospective evaluation.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 179: 934-937Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar Most of the increase is in the mild variety with little clinical consequence. Clearly, different definitions result in different incidence numbers; the key is to use a clear and consistent definition and to report rates for both the complicated and uncomplicated forms of shoulder dystocia.As discussed in the article, the perceived need or maneuver is to a degree subjective and “…changing shoulder dystocia rates are always open to interpretation as to whether the actual condition was changing or possibly only diagnostic criteria were applied differently. Therefore, we also examined a subset of the total shoulder dystocia group that had an additional objective marker of a difficult shoulder dystocia delivery, namely those with any BPI or need for immediate intubation, bag and mask ventilation or fracture.” The fact that these complicated shoulder dystocia rates were also falling during the course of the study, coupled with no change in either uncomplicated or complicated shoulder dystocia rates among the physician group without access to the program, increased our confidence that a real change was occurring rather than a simple change in institutional practice of diagnostic labeling.Dr Kreitzer expresses an interest in studies to determine the optimal management of shoulder dystocia. We note that better methods to detect the few women who are at very elevated risk so they may be offered cesarean delivery and better techniques to deliver unexpected cases are complementary approaches. We welcome more studies to shed light on this difficult subject. We thank Dr Kreitzer for his continuing communications on shoulder dystocia and comments on our work. We agree that subjective definitions and imperfect record keeping are limitations with most studies on shoulder dystocia; however, we would like to point out an incorrect assumption in the letter. In our study, incidences of shoulder dystocia were not determined by retrospective chart review, which would potentially add recorder bias issues. The diagnosis was recorded prospectively in the delivery record by the delivering clinicians at the time of the birth. Very few centers use the prolonged head-to-body interval as the sole criterion for diagnosing shoulder dystocia. Most use the standard American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists definition. Use of a prolonged interval increases the “observed” rate of shoulder dystocia several-fold to the range of 13.7-16% of vaginal births.1Spong C.Y. Beall M. Rodrigues D. Ross M.G. An objective definition of shoulder dystocia: prolonged head-to-body delivery intervals and/or the use of ancillary obstetric maneuvers.Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 86: 433-436Crossref PubMed Scopus (124) Google Scholar, 2Beall M.H. Spong C. McKay J. Ross M.G. Objective definition of shoulder dystocia: a prospective evaluation.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 179: 934-937Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar Most of the increase is in the mild variety with little clinical consequence. Clearly, different definitions result in different incidence numbers; the key is to use a clear and consistent definition and to report rates for both the complicated and uncomplicated forms of shoulder dystocia. As discussed in the article, the perceived need or maneuver is to a degree subjective and “…changing shoulder dystocia rates are always open to interpretation as to whether the actual condition was changing or possibly only diagnostic criteria were applied differently. Therefore, we also examined a subset of the total shoulder dystocia group that had an additional objective marker of a difficult shoulder dystocia delivery, namely those with any BPI or need for immediate intubation, bag and mask ventilation or fracture.” The fact that these complicated shoulder dystocia rates were also falling during the course of the study, coupled with no change in either uncomplicated or complicated shoulder dystocia rates among the physician group without access to the program, increased our confidence that a real change was occurring rather than a simple change in institutional practice of diagnostic labeling. Dr Kreitzer expresses an interest in studies to determine the optimal management of shoulder dystocia. We note that better methods to detect the few women who are at very elevated risk so they may be offered cesarean delivery and better techniques to deliver unexpected cases are complementary approaches. We welcome more studies to shed light on this difficult subject. Shoulder dystocia outcomes associated with structured prenatal counselingAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & GynecologyVol. 208Issue 3PreviewI commend the efforts of my New Jersey colleagues undertaking quantitative risk assessment for shoulder dystocia, and applying it prospectively.1 Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W98726030 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W98726030 creator A5030783527 @default.
• W98726030 creator A5039574307 @default.
• W98726030 creator A5075385385 @default.
• W98726030 date "2013-03-01" @default.
• W98726030 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W98726030 title "Reply" @default.
• W98726030 cites W1972311315 @default.
• W98726030 cites W2072071746 @default.
• W98726030 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.11.038" @default.
• W98726030 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23200715" @default.
• W98726030 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W98726030 type Work @default.
• W98726030 sameAs 98726030 @default.
• W98726030 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W98726030 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W98726030 hasAuthorship W98726030A5030783527 @default.
• W98726030 hasAuthorship W98726030A5039574307 @default.
• W98726030 hasAuthorship W98726030A5075385385 @default.
• W98726030 hasBestOaLocation W987260301 @default.
• W98726030 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W98726030 hasConcept C131872663 @default.
• W98726030 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W98726030 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W98726030 hasConcept C2779234561 @default.
• W98726030 hasConcept C2779470629 @default.
• W98726030 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W98726030 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W98726030 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W98726030 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
• W98726030 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W98726030 hasConcept C83867959 @default.
• W98726030 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W98726030 hasConceptScore W98726030C126322002 @default.
• W98726030 hasConceptScore W98726030C131872663 @default.
• W98726030 hasConceptScore W98726030C17744445 @default.
• W98726030 hasConceptScore W98726030C199539241 @default.
• W98726030 hasConceptScore W98726030C2779234561 @default.
• W98726030 hasConceptScore W98726030C2779470629 @default.
• W98726030 hasConceptScore W98726030C2779473830 @default.
• W98726030 hasConceptScore W98726030C29456083 @default.
• W98726030 hasConceptScore W98726030C44249647 @default.
• W98726030 hasConceptScore W98726030C54355233 @default.
• W98726030 hasConceptScore W98726030C71924100 @default.
• W98726030 hasConceptScore W98726030C83867959 @default.
• W98726030 hasConceptScore W98726030C86803240 @default.
• W98726030 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W98726030 hasLocation W987260301 @default.
• W98726030 hasLocation W987260302 @default.
• W98726030 hasOpenAccess W98726030 @default.
• W98726030 hasPrimaryLocation W987260301 @default.
• W98726030 hasRelatedWork W1976872798 @default.
• W98726030 hasRelatedWork W1982244273 @default.
• W98726030 hasRelatedWork W2036647806 @default.
• W98726030 hasRelatedWork W2046332768 @default.
• W98726030 hasRelatedWork W2128625376 @default.
• W98726030 hasRelatedWork W2363400180 @default.
• W98726030 hasRelatedWork W2387353147 @default.
• W98726030 hasRelatedWork W2773816721 @default.
• W98726030 hasRelatedWork W2789448498 @default.
• W98726030 hasRelatedWork W4249139583 @default.
• W98726030 hasVolume "208" @default.
• W98726030 isParatext "false" @default.
• W98726030 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W98726030 magId "98726030" @default.
• W98726030 workType "article" @default.