ArticleAustralasian journal of ultrasound in medicine2017
Measuring leading placental edge to internal cervical os: Transabdominal versus transvaginal approach.
Article in Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to compare the value of transabdominal (TA) and transvaginal (TV) approaches for assessing the risk of a low-lying placenta. This involved a comparison of TA and TV measurements between the leading placental edge and the internal cervical os. We also assessed the intra-/interobserver variation for these measurements and the efficacy of TA measures in screening for a low placenta. METHODOLOGY: Transabdominal and TV measurements of the leading placental edge to the internal cervical os were performed on 369 consecutive pregnancies of 16-41 weeks' gestation. The difference (TA-TV) from the mean was calculated and plotted against gestational age. Bland-Altman plots and paired t-tests were used to look at the differences in TA/TV measurement. Screening performance of a transabdominal approach was compared to a transvaginal 'gold standard'. Nonparametric methods were used to calculate the area under the receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve. Intra-/interobserver variations were also calculated.
resultsOf the pregnancies, 278 had a leading placental edge that was visible with the TV approach. Differences (TA-TV) ranged from -50 mm to +57 mm. Bland-Altman plot shows that TA measurements overestimated the distance compared with the TV measurements; the average difference in measurement was 12.0 mm (95% confidence interval 9.9-14.1). The sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive values of a TA approach were 18.2%, 97.5% and 87.2%, respectively. The receiver operator characteristics area between gestational weeks 16-23 was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.86).
conclusionThe TA approach has a low sensitivity for detecting a low-lying placenta as choosing a TA cut-off with sensitivity >90% will decrease the specificity to 50%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.