We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Ultrasonographic assessment of amniotic fluid does not reflect actual amniotic fluid volume.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1997 August
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the ability of two methods of amniotic fluid assessment (two-diameter amniotic fluid pocket versus the amniotic fluid index) to predict oligohydramnios (actual amniotic fluid volume < 500 ml) or polyhydramnios (actual amniotic fluid volume > 1500 ml).
STUDY DESIGN: The amniotic fluid index and the two-diameter amniotic fluid pocket were assessed before amniocentesis and determination of amniotic fluid volume with the dye (aminohippurate sodium)-dilution technique. To assess the detection of either oligohydramnios or polyhydramnios, the areas under the receiver-operator characteristic curves (+/-SE) were estimated by the point-to-point trapezoidal method of integration. Prediction limits were calculated by regression analysis of amniotic fluid index or two-diameter amniotic fluid pocket versus actual amniotic fluid volume and determination of 95th percentile ranges for amniotic fluid volume.
RESULTS: We studied 144 patients with a mean (+/-SD) gestational age of 31.7 +/- 5.5 weeks; mean (+/-SD) amniotic fluid index and two-diameter amniotic fluid pocket were 12.6 +/- 6.1 cm and 21.2 +/- 18.4 cm2, respectively. Mean (+/-SD) actual amniotic fluid volume was 722 +/- 735 ml (range 101 to 4318 ml). The areas under the four receiver-operator characteristic curves were not significantly different from the nondiagnostic line (p < 0.05). Regression slopes (r values) for amniotic fluid index and two-diameter amniotic fluid pocket versus actual amniotic fluid volume were 0.34 and 0.23, respectively. Calculation of the prediction limit for 95% confidence that oligohydramnios is absent requires that the amniotic fluid index be 30 cm and the two-dimension amniotic fluid pocket be 90 cm2, both thresholds of which are currently considered to represent clinical polyhdramnios.
CONCLUSIONS: Both amniotic fluid index and two-dimension amniotic fluid pocket appear to be inaccurate predictors of actual oligohydramnios or polyhydramnios when compared with dye-dilution calculations of actual amniotic fluid volume.
STUDY DESIGN: The amniotic fluid index and the two-diameter amniotic fluid pocket were assessed before amniocentesis and determination of amniotic fluid volume with the dye (aminohippurate sodium)-dilution technique. To assess the detection of either oligohydramnios or polyhydramnios, the areas under the receiver-operator characteristic curves (+/-SE) were estimated by the point-to-point trapezoidal method of integration. Prediction limits were calculated by regression analysis of amniotic fluid index or two-diameter amniotic fluid pocket versus actual amniotic fluid volume and determination of 95th percentile ranges for amniotic fluid volume.
RESULTS: We studied 144 patients with a mean (+/-SD) gestational age of 31.7 +/- 5.5 weeks; mean (+/-SD) amniotic fluid index and two-diameter amniotic fluid pocket were 12.6 +/- 6.1 cm and 21.2 +/- 18.4 cm2, respectively. Mean (+/-SD) actual amniotic fluid volume was 722 +/- 735 ml (range 101 to 4318 ml). The areas under the four receiver-operator characteristic curves were not significantly different from the nondiagnostic line (p < 0.05). Regression slopes (r values) for amniotic fluid index and two-diameter amniotic fluid pocket versus actual amniotic fluid volume were 0.34 and 0.23, respectively. Calculation of the prediction limit for 95% confidence that oligohydramnios is absent requires that the amniotic fluid index be 30 cm and the two-dimension amniotic fluid pocket be 90 cm2, both thresholds of which are currently considered to represent clinical polyhdramnios.
CONCLUSIONS: Both amniotic fluid index and two-dimension amniotic fluid pocket appear to be inaccurate predictors of actual oligohydramnios or polyhydramnios when compared with dye-dilution calculations of actual amniotic fluid volume.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app