PDF
Easy Read
Respond to this article- Versions
- bmj.38919.681563.4Fv1
- 333/7568/578 most recent
- Natasha Nassar (natashan{at}ichr.uwa.edu.au), research associate1,
- Christine L Roberts, research director1,
- Carolyn A Cameron, research associate1,
- Emily C Olive, research fellow in obstetrics1
- 1 Centre for Perinatal Health Services Research, School of Public Health, University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia
- Correspondence to: N Nassar
- Accepted 29 June 2006
Abstract
Objective To examine the diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination to determine fetal presentation in late pregnancy.
Design Cross sectional analytic study with index test of clinical examination and reference standard of ultrasonography.
Setting Antenatal clinic in tertiary obstetric hospital in Sydney, Australia.
Participants 1633 women with a singleton pregnancy between 35 and 37 weeks' gestation attending antenatal clinics.
Intervention Fetal presentation assessed by clinical examination during routine antenatal care, followed by ultrasonography to confirm the diagnosis.
Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of clinical examination compared with ultrasonography. Diagnostic rates by maternal characteristics.
Results Ultrasonography identified non-cephalic presentation in 130 (8%) women, comprising 103 (6.3%) with breech and 27 (1.7%) with transverse or oblique lie. Sensitivity of clinical examination for detecting non-cephalic presentation was 70% (95% confidence interval 62% to 78%) and specificity was 95% (94% to 96%). The positive predictive value and negative predictive value were55% and 97%, respectively.
Conclusions Clinical examination is not sensitive enough for detection and timely management of non-cephalic presentation.
Footnotes
-
Contributors See bmj.com.
-
Funding Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grant (211051). NN was funded by an Australian NHMRC Public Health Postgraduate Research Scholarship. CLR was funded by an Australian NHMRC Public Health Practitioner Fellowship.
-
Competing interests None declared.
-
Ethical approval: Approved by the Central Sydney Area Health Service Research Ethics Committee (Protocol number: X03-0185).
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: The comforts of spiritualism
Published 23 May 2012
Re: The hardest thing: admitting error
Published 23 May 2012
Ice cream headache as a new example of “Cold headache” in Avicenna’s manuscript
Published 23 May 2012
Re: Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial seriesCommentary: Larger trials are needed
Published 23 May 2012
Re: Testing athletes, and banning those who take drugs, is unjustifiable
Published 23 May 2012
Most responses
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (6 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32