3.8 Review

The effectiveness of intrapartum ultrasonography in assessing cervical dilatation, head station and position: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

ULTRASOUND
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 222-232

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1742271X16673124

关键词

Intrapartum; ultrasonography; digital VE; cervical dilatation; head station; position

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of intrapartum ultrasonography in measuring cervical dilatation, head station and position. Electronic literature searches were carried out of MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Knowledge, plus manual reference list checks of all relevant articles. All published prospective studies comparing intrapartum ultrasonography with digital VE in the determination of cervical dilatation, head station and position were then evaluated for the success rate and level of agreement between ultrasonography and digital VE. Ultrasonography had higher success rate than digital VE in the determination of fetal head position, with a statistically significant difference in the first stage of labour. Second, although the successful determination of cervical dilatation was in favour of digital VE, the difference was not statistically significant. In addition, there was high agreement between ultrasound and digital VE findings on cervical dilatation. Lastly, a significant but moderate correlation between digital VE and ultrasound methods was found in the assessment of fetal head station. However, no meta-analysis could be done for the fetal head station due to the methodological differences between ultrasound anatomical landmarks and that of digital VE. The findings suggest that ultrasonography is superior to digital VE in the assessment of fetal head position, but has moderate correlation with digital VE in the assessment of head station. It also showed high agreement with digital VE in the assessment of cervical dilatation with no statistically significant difference in terms of success rate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据