American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2009
Blinded comparison of cervical portio length measurements by digital examination vs Cervilenz.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Burwick Richard M, Lee Gene T, Benedict Jennifer L, Ross Michael G, Kjos Siri L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Cervical length (CL) examinations may identify patients in preterm labor or those who may benefit from prophylactic therapy. We sought to compare the accuracy of clinician digital CL examinations with objective measurements using the Cervilenz device in women presenting with symptoms of preterm labor.
STUDY DESIGN: Forty-two patients with singleton gestation from 24 to 34 weeks' gestation and cervical dilation less than 3 cm underwent speculum examination and Cervilenz measurement. A second examiner, blinded to results, digitally measured CL. Pearson's correlation coefficient, Student t tests and McNemar's tests were used to compare digital and Cervilenz measures.
RESULTS: Digital CL was significantly less than Cervilenz (2.88 vs 3.40 cm; P < .001), and in 36% of subjects, this difference exceeded 1 cm. The discrepancy in CL estimates persisted whether women were multiparous or had soft cervices or a history of preterm delivery.
CONCLUSION: Digital assessment underestimates CL, whereas the Cervilenz device permits a visualized and objective CL measure in patients with preterm labor.
STUDY DESIGN: Forty-two patients with singleton gestation from 24 to 34 weeks' gestation and cervical dilation less than 3 cm underwent speculum examination and Cervilenz measurement. A second examiner, blinded to results, digitally measured CL. Pearson's correlation coefficient, Student t tests and McNemar's tests were used to compare digital and Cervilenz measures.
RESULTS: Digital CL was significantly less than Cervilenz (2.88 vs 3.40 cm; P < .001), and in 36% of subjects, this difference exceeded 1 cm. The discrepancy in CL estimates persisted whether women were multiparous or had soft cervices or a history of preterm delivery.
CONCLUSION: Digital assessment underestimates CL, whereas the Cervilenz device permits a visualized and objective CL measure in patients with preterm labor.