These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Subjective ultrasonographic assessment of amniotic fluid depth: comparison with the amniotic fluid index.
    Author: Hallak M, Kirshon B, O'Brian Smith E, Evans MI, Cotton DB.
    Journal: Fetal Diagn Ther; 1993; 8(4):256-60. PubMed ID: 8260079.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability to identify abnormalities in amniotic fluid volume by subjective ultrasonographic assessment compared to a semiobjective method. In 886 consecutive ultrasound examinations subjective assessment of the amniotic fluid volume was performed and graded into 3 categories: normal, decreased, and increased. Following that, a four-quadrant sum (amniotic fluid index) was performed by the same experienced ultrasonographer and divided into 3 categories using the 5th and 95th percentiles. The sensitivity of the subjective analysis to diagnose a decreased amniotic fluid volume when compared with the amniotic fluid index was 58% (95% confidence interval, CI: 40-70%), with a false-positive rate of 17% (CI 8-32%). The sensitivity of the subjective analysis to diagnose an increased amniotic fluid volume when compared with the amniotic fluid index was 100% (CI 70-100%). However, the false-positive rate was 74% (CI 55-85%). Diagnosis of a normal amount of amniotic fluid by the subjective technique had a sensitivity of 96% (CI 95-97%) and a false-positive rate of 3% (CI 2-4%). Subjective ultrasonographic assessment of the amniotic fluid volume may serve as a screening test for the experienced ultrasonographer. However, when a decreased or increased amount of amniotic fluid volume is suspected, one may elect to use the amniotic fluid index for confirmation of the subjective impression.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]