2020
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2020.1849123
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling gestational age centiles for fetal umbilicocerebral ratio by quantile regression analysis: a secondary analysis of a prospective cross-sectional study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Biometric variables, estimated fetal weight, and Doppler indices change with gestational age, so data were expressed as the number of standard deviations (z score) by which they diverged from the expected mean difference obtained from previously constructed reference limits. 16,18,19 A sample size analysis was performed to evaluate the sample size necessary. Given a significance of .05 and power of −.80, a sample size of 47 in the study group and 94 in the control group is necessary to demonstrate differences of 0.5 z scores in the variables considered.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Biometric variables, estimated fetal weight, and Doppler indices change with gestational age, so data were expressed as the number of standard deviations (z score) by which they diverged from the expected mean difference obtained from previously constructed reference limits. 16,18,19 A sample size analysis was performed to evaluate the sample size necessary. Given a significance of .05 and power of −.80, a sample size of 47 in the study group and 94 in the control group is necessary to demonstrate differences of 0.5 z scores in the variables considered.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Biometric variables, estimated fetal weight, and Doppler indices change with gestational age, so data were expressed as the number of standard deviations ( z score) by which they diverged from the expected mean difference obtained from previously constructed reference limits 16,18,19 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…and cerebroplacental ratio, defined as a ratio between the middle cerebral artery and umbilical artery pulsatility index according to a previously published methodology. 21,22 Umbilical vein (UV) diameter and time-averaged maximum velocity were measured in UV intra-abdominal portion by real time and Doppler ultrasonography. A semi-automatic measurement software was used to obtain UV diameter values.…”
Section: Key Messagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…23 The primary outcome of the study was the prediction of fetal macrosomia, defined as a birthweight >90th centile for our national reference limits, 24 while the secondary outcome was a birthweight >4000 g. Since all the biometric, Doppler variables and EFW changes with gestational age data were expressed as z values (ie the number of standard deviations they differ from the expected mean for gestation calculated with the formula: observed value -expected value for gestational age/standard deviation for gestational age) derived from our reference limits for gestation. 22,23 Data were expressed as median and interquartile range or number (n) and percentage (%). Continuous variables were compared using Mann-Whitney U test and categorical variables using Chisquare test.…”
Section: Key Messagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, it has been proposed that the ratio between the umbilical and middle cerebral artery pulsatility index, the umbilicocerebral ratio (UCR), had a higher diagnostic accuracy compared to CPR in predicting adverse outcome and therefore gestational age-specific normative centile reference limits have been established for UCR. 26 A study by Mascio et al, however, showed no difference between CPR and UCR in predicting adverse perinatal outcome in the third trimester of pregnancy. 27 We have not used UCR in our study although further studies can be undertaken to assess and compare these two parameters in RFM patients too.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%