JUM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Order Full text via Infotrieve
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shields, L. E.
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, R. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shields, L. E.
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, R. M.

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol 12, Issue 5 271-274, Copyright © 1993 by American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Fetal growth: a comparison of growth curves with mathematical modeling

L. E. Shields, R. W. Huff, G. M. Jackson, D. L. Olive and R. M. Patterson
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.

This study compared the use of fetal growth curves with the Rossavik mathematical model in predicting third trimester fetal growth in 27 Hispanic patients. The parameters tested were BPD, HC, AC, and FL. The growth curve method of predicting third trimester fetal growth was significantly more accurate than the mathematical model for three of the four fetal parameters tested: BPD, HC, and FL. We conclude that the mathematical model method offered no advantage over the more commonly used growth curve method for predicting third trimester fetal growth. In addition, growth curves do not require complex calculations and are conceptually simpler and easier to use.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.