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 Woo, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Wong, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Woo, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Wong, V.

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol 3, Issue 3 101-105, Copyright © 1984 by American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Abdominal circumference vs abdominal area--which is better?

J. S. Woo, S. T. Liang, C. W. Wan, A. Ghosh, K. M. Cho and V. Wong

The efficacies of ultrasonic abdominal circumference (AC) and abdominal area (AA) measurements in the evaluation of intrauterine fetal growth were compared. The intraobserver random and technical errors were found to be significantly higher with AA measurements. The correlation with intrauterine fetal weight was observed to be better with AC as compared with AA measurements, the fetal weights being expressed as either linear regressions or multiple regressions involving the two parameters. Between 32 and 38 weeks, a single AC measurement detects 74 per cent of small-for-date fetuses, while a single AA measurement detects only 58 per cent of such fetuses. The false-positive rates were similar for the two parameters. It is concluded that AA measurements are no more useful than AC measurements in the routine assessment of intrauterine fetal growth.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1984 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.