Gestational age and fetal growth assessment among obstetricians

• Type: Article in International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2015

Authors

Santos RF (Author) FMUP; Mendes Castro, A (Author) FMUP; Ferreira, D (Author) Other; Miguelote, RF (Author) Other; Ricardo Cruz Correia (Author) FMUP; Joao Bernardes (Author) FMUP

Journal

Title: Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine

Vol. 28

Pages: 2034-2039

ISSN: 1476-7058

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

Indexing

ISI Web of Knowledge - 1 Citation

Scopus - 2 Citations

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-00G-P99

DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2014.974541

Abstract (EN): Objective: We aimed to characterize gestational age assessment and fetal growth evaluation among obstetricians. Methods: Observational, cross-sectional study. We applied a questionnaire to obstetrics specialists and residents, during a national congress on obstetrics. Results: Almost all 179 respondents correct gestational age in the first trimester by ultrasound, but 63% only if there is a difference of 2-9 days. Ultrasound at 11-13 weeks was considered more accurate than at 8-10 weeks by 81%, with a higher proportion of specialists choosing correctly the last answer (p - 0.05). One-third of the respondents did not correctly point the error associated with the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight (EFW). Of the 88% who use a growth table, only 32% were able to identify it by publication/author. Ninety-eight percent identify fetal growth restriction risk (FGR) with centiles (10th in 76%) and 73% of doctors diagnose FGR without other pathological findings (10th in 49%). 44% finds that a low EFW centile maintenance (4th to 3rd) is more worrisome than the crossing of two quartiles (75th to 24th). Conclusions: The role of ultrasound in gestational age assessment and use of EFW use for FGR classification was disparate among participants. EFW and respective centiles may be over relied upon.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 6