Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://repository.kln.ac.lk/handle/123456789/2352
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorD'Antonio, F.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDias, T.en_US
dc.contributor.authorThilaganathan, B.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSouthwest Thames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK)en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-10-29T10:14:35Zen_US
dc.date.available2014-10-29T10:14:35Zen_US
dc.date.issued2013en_US
dc.identifier.citationUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013; 41(3): 274-7.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0960-7692 (Print)en_US
dc.identifier.issn1469-0705 (Electronic)en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1002/uog.12310.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.kln.ac.lk/handle/123456789/2352en_US
dc.descriptionIndexed in MEDLINE; Comment In:[ Khalil A., Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013. 41(3): 245]en_US
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: It is often assumed by obstetricians, neonatologists and parents that the prenatal nomenclature used to identify twins on ultrasound is consistent with twin labeling after their birth. The aim of this study was to use a large regional database of twin ultrasound scans to validate the effectiveness of a scan before delivery in predicting twin birth-order. METHODS: A large regional database of twin ultrasound scans with data from nine hospitals over a 10-year period was used to identify all ultrasound examinations carried out just before birth. The discordance in twin order between the last scan and birth was evaluated by observing discrepancies in fetal sex and weight. RESULTS: In total, 2103 twin pregnancies with ultrasound estimated fetal weights (EFWs) and birth weights were assessed. Of these, fetal sex was recorded in 149 different-sex pregnancies. Discrepancy between antenatal labeling and the anticipated birth order was noted in 37.6% (56/149) of cases when judged by sex discordance and in 36% (757/2103) of cases when judged by weight discordance. Multiple logistic regression analyses demonstrated that weight discordance, but not chorionicity, scan-to-delivery interval, gestation at scan or gestation at delivery, significantly influenced the change in birth order (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Antenatal ultrasound labeling does not predict twin birth-order in a significant proportion of twin deliveries. This finding should be borne in mind not only by parents, but also by physicians when delivering twins discordant for anomalies that are not evident on external examinationen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.source.urihttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/uog.12310/abstracten_US
dc.subjectPregnancy, Twinen_US
dc.titleDoes antenatal ultrasound labeling predict birth order in twin pregnancies?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.departmentObstetrics and Gynaecologyen_US
dc.creator.corporateauthorInternational Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecologyen_US
dc.description.noteComment in Re: Does antenatal ultrasound labeling predict birth order in twin pregnancies? F. D'Antonio, T. Dias and B. Thilaganathan on behalf of the SouthwestThames Obstetric Research Collaborative (STORK). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41: 274-277. [Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013]en_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.