1991
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1991.tb10344.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The tap test—a rapid bedside indicator of fetal lung maturity

Abstract: Summary. The reliability of two rapid bedside tests of fetal lung maturity was investigated in 80 amniotic fluid samples. The results of the ‘tap’ test and those of the shake test were compared with the results of laboratory measurements of phospholipid profiles for fetal lung maturity. The tap test was found to be more reliable with a positive predictive value of 91% and a negative predictive value of 63%, whereas the shake test had a positive predictive value of 79% and a negative predictive value of 31%. T… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
3
1

Year Published

1997
1997
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar to other studies done by Guidozzi et al, 1991;Rodriguez-Macias KA, 1995 andKucuk M, 1997, this study also reveals that the tap test has better specificity and predictive value for fetal lung immaturity than the shake test. However, unlike in other studies done by Guidozzi F et al, 1991;Rodriguez-Macias KA, 1995 andKucuk M, 1998 where the tap test had better sensitivity and predictive value for fetal lung maturity compared to the shake test, this study had better sensitivity for shake test than for the tap test and comparable predictive value for fetal lung maturity between the two tests. 3,6,10 The tap test is semi quantitative with arbitrary cut off for maturity and the shake test is also qualitative.…”
Section: Comparison Of Tap Test and Shake Testsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Similar to other studies done by Guidozzi et al, 1991;Rodriguez-Macias KA, 1995 andKucuk M, 1997, this study also reveals that the tap test has better specificity and predictive value for fetal lung immaturity than the shake test. However, unlike in other studies done by Guidozzi F et al, 1991;Rodriguez-Macias KA, 1995 andKucuk M, 1998 where the tap test had better sensitivity and predictive value for fetal lung maturity compared to the shake test, this study had better sensitivity for shake test than for the tap test and comparable predictive value for fetal lung maturity between the two tests. 3,6,10 The tap test is semi quantitative with arbitrary cut off for maturity and the shake test is also qualitative.…”
Section: Comparison Of Tap Test and Shake Testsupporting
confidence: 90%
“…However, unlike in other studies done by Guidozzi F et al, 1991;Rodriguez-Macias KA, 1995 andKucuk M, 1998 where the tap test had better sensitivity and predictive value for fetal lung maturity compared to the shake test, this study had better sensitivity for shake test than for the tap test and comparable predictive value for fetal lung maturity between the two tests. 3,6,10 The tap test is semi quantitative with arbitrary cut off for maturity and the shake test is also qualitative. The borderline results like 6 to 20 bubbles in the ether layer in tap test and incomplete ring of bubbles at the meniscus in the shake test were considered immature in this study.…”
Section: Comparison Of Tap Test and Shake Testcontrasting
confidence: 83%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…[11][12][13][14][15] The ideal test for fetal lung maturity should be rapid, inexpensive, and capable of being done at the patient's bedside, with high predictive value for both positive and negative results. 16,17 Fetal lung maturity can be determined as soon as the baby is born from gastric aspirate at the bedside and can be decided accordingly with the referral of the patients to the higher center where all neonatal facilities are available. Studies about the feasibility of a single-step shake test on gastric aspirates in the rapid evaluation of pulmonary surfactant maturity at birth in Nepali neonates have so far been not done.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%