Literature DB >> 15547567

Accuracy of simulated cervical dilation and effacement measurements among practitioners.

Kathleen A Huhn1, Brian C Brost.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether hard or soft cervical models produced more accurate results when examined by practitioners of various experience levels. STUDY
DESIGN: Simulated hard and soft cervical models were placed in a chamber designed to simulate a realistic vaginal examination. These cervical dilation and effacement models ranged from 1 cm to 6 cm and from thick (4 cm) to complete (0.2 cm). Each examiner had 20 seconds to evaluate each of 12 models of varying dilation and effacement using the soft and then the hard models. Models of the same dilation and effacement were presented to each practitioner in the same sequence. Physicians, nurses, and residents did the cervical evaluations.
RESULTS: Of 360 recorded dilation measurements, only 19% were exactly correct using the soft models, whereas 54% were exact using the hard models. The percentages correct using hard cervix models progressively decreased with advancing cervical dilation. No consistent trend was found using the soft models. The respective results for correct effacement measurements were 49% soft versus 58% hard.
CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of cervical dilation and effacement was consistently more accurate in the hard, compared with the soft, cervical model. The greatest deviation between the models was noted among the residents, suggesting that beginning practitioners may benefit from learning on firm models before progressing to more realistic soft models. However, it should also be noted that all practitioners might benefit from practice with soft models, especially to determine accurate dilation because scores in this category were consistently below what might be expected.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15547567     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.07.062

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  9 in total

1.  Cervical Evaluation: From Ancient Medicine to Precision Medicine.

Authors:  Helen Feltovich
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Physiologic partograph to improve birth safety and outcomes among low-risk, nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset.

Authors:  Jeremy L Neal; Nancy K Lowe
Journal:  Med Hypotheses       Date:  2011-12-03       Impact factor: 1.538

3.  The purple line as a measure of labour progress: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Ashley Shepherd; Helen Cheyne; Susan Kennedy; Colette McIntosh; Maggie Styles; Catherine Niven
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 4.  New techniques in evaluation of the cervix.

Authors:  Helen Feltovich; Lindsey Carlson
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.300

5.  A simplified cervix model in response to induction balloon in pre-labour.

Authors:  James Andrew Smith
Journal:  Theor Biol Med Model       Date:  2013-09-26       Impact factor: 2.432

6.  A Novel Approach to Teaching the Cervical Exam: A Versatile, Low-Cost Simulation for Labor and Delivery Learners.

Authors:  Jamie D Perry; Jill M Maples; Heather N Deisher; Hayley Trimble; Jaclyn V van Nes; Kaitlin Morton; Nikki B Zite
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-12-07

7.  The diagnostic accuracy of purple line in prediction of labor progress in omolbanin hospital, iran.

Authors:  Masoumeh Kordi; Morvarid Irani; Fatemeh Tara; Habibollah Esmaily
Journal:  Iran Red Crescent Med J       Date:  2014-11-16       Impact factor: 0.611

8.  Agreement between transperineal ultrasound measurements and digital examinations of cervical dilatation during labor.

Authors:  Sigurlaug Benediktsdottir; Torbjørn M Eggebø; Kjell Å Salvesen
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2015-10-24       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  Measurement of retropubic tissue thickness using intrapartum transperineal ultrasound to assess cephalopelvic disproportion.

Authors:  Chung Ming Chor; Wai Yin Winnie Chan; Wing Ting Ada Tse; Daljit Singh Sahota
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2017-08-11
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.