EBM

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Evidence-Based Medicine 2007;12:54; doi:10.1136/ebm.12.2.54
Copyright © 2007 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Young, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Young, G.
Topic Collections
Right arrow EBM Diagnosis

Diagnosis

Clinical examination had poor sensitivity for detecting non-cephalic presentation in late pregnancy

Nassar N, Roberts CL, Cameron CA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination for detection of non-cephalic presentation in late pregnancy: cross sectional analytic study. BMJ 2006;333:578–80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Q Is clinical examination as accurate as ultrasonography for identifying fetuses in non-cephalic presentation in late pregnancy?

Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Obstetrics ******{star} Obstetrics ****{star}{star}{star}

Key Words: labour presentation • physical examination • pregnancy complications • prenatal diagnosis

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

METHODS
Formula Design: blinded comparison of clinical examination and ultrasonography.

Formula Setting: antenatal clinic in tertiary obstetric hospital in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Formula Patients: 1633 women (mean age 31 y) with a singleton pregnancy at 35–37 weeks’ gestation.

Formula Description of test: clinical examination to assess fetal presentation was performed as part of routine antenatal care by residents or registrars (55% of examinations), midwives (28%), or obstetricians (17%).

Formula Diagnostic standard: ultrasound examination of the fetus using a hand held machine.

Formula Outcomes: sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios.

MAIN RESULTS
In 130 women (8.0%), the fetus was in non-cephalic presentation: 6.3% in breech presentation and 1.7% with transverse or oblique lie. The diagnostic characteristics of clinical examination, compared with ultrasonographic assessment of fetal presentation, are shown in the tableGo. Both sensitivity (38%) and specificity (89%) were poor in obese women. In women at the lower end of the gestational age range (34–35 weeks), clinical examination was . . . [Full text of this article]

Gavin Young, MBBS, FRCGP, DRCOG

Temple Sowerby Medical Practice
Penrith, UK







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2007 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.