The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2012
Isolated intrauterine growth restriction: a survey of Central Association of Obstetricians Gynecologists (CAOG) members.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Chauhan Suneet P, Dahlke Joshua D, Magann Everett F, Chang Eugene, Gupta Lata, Mol Ben W, Lewis David F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to ascertain clinicians' opinions and current management with isolated (no concomitant morbidity) intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR).
METHODS: Members of the Central Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CAOG) were surveyed. We considered consensus to be agreement among 90% of the respondents.
RESULTS: The response rate was 36% (137/385). Among the 21 questions on the topic, the only consensus was that none of the respondents informed women of the recurrence rate of IUGR. There was variance in what constitutes IUGR as well as practice patterns for detection and management of suboptimal growth. Ten (7%) of the respondents had at least one litigation involving management of IUGR. Responses from 87 general obstetrician-gynecologists varied significantly from that of 33 maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) subspecialists for 48% (10/21) of the survey questions (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There is large practice variation in detection and management of isolated IUGR. This stresses the need for additional studies and a national guideline on its management.
METHODS: Members of the Central Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CAOG) were surveyed. We considered consensus to be agreement among 90% of the respondents.
RESULTS: The response rate was 36% (137/385). Among the 21 questions on the topic, the only consensus was that none of the respondents informed women of the recurrence rate of IUGR. There was variance in what constitutes IUGR as well as practice patterns for detection and management of suboptimal growth. Ten (7%) of the respondents had at least one litigation involving management of IUGR. Responses from 87 general obstetrician-gynecologists varied significantly from that of 33 maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) subspecialists for 48% (10/21) of the survey questions (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There is large practice variation in detection and management of isolated IUGR. This stresses the need for additional studies and a national guideline on its management.