OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic impact of limited obstetric ultrasound (US) in identifying high-risk pregnancies when used as a screening tool by midwives in rural Uganda. STUDY DESIGN: This was an institutional review board-approved prospective study of expecting mothers in rural Uganda who underwent clinical and US exams as part of their standard antenatal care visit in a local health center in the Isingiro district of Uganda. The midwives documented clinical impressions before performing a limited obstetric US on the same patient. The clinical findings were then compared with the subsequent US findings to determine the diagnostic impact. The midwives were US-naive before participating in the 6-week training course for limited obstetric US. RESULT: Midwife-performed screening obstetric US altered the clinical diagnosis in up to 12% clinical encounters. This diagnostic impact is less (6.7 to 7.4%) if the early third trimester diagnosis of malpresentation is excluded. The quality assurance review of midwives' imaging demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosing gestational number, and 90% sensitivity and 96% specificity in the diagnosis of fetal presentation. CONCLUSION: Limited, screening obstetric US performed by midwives with focused, obstetric US training demonstrates the diagnostic impact for identifying conditions associated with high-risk pregnancies in 6.7 to 12% of patients screened. The limited obstetric US improved diagnosis of early pregnancy complication as well as later gestation twins and malpresentation. Midwives who have undergone focused 6-week limited obstetric US training proved capable of diagnosing twins and fetal presentation with high sensitivity and specificity.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic impact of limited obstetric ultrasound (US) in identifying high-risk pregnancies when used as a screening tool by midwives in rural Uganda. STUDY DESIGN: This was an institutional review board-approved prospective study of expecting mothers in rural Uganda who underwent clinical and US exams as part of their standard antenatal care visit in a local health center in the Isingiro district of Uganda. The midwives documented clinical impressions before performing a limited obstetric US on the same patient. The clinical findings were then compared with the subsequent US findings to determine the diagnostic impact. The midwives were US-naive before participating in the 6-week training course for limited obstetric US. RESULT: Midwife-performed screening obstetric US altered the clinical diagnosis in up to 12% clinical encounters. This diagnostic impact is less (6.7 to 7.4%) if the early third trimester diagnosis of malpresentation is excluded. The quality assurance review of midwives' imaging demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosing gestational number, and 90% sensitivity and 96% specificity in the diagnosis of fetal presentation. CONCLUSION: Limited, screening obstetric US performed by midwives with focused, obstetric US training demonstrates the diagnostic impact for identifying conditions associated with high-risk pregnancies in 6.7 to 12% of patients screened. The limited obstetric US improved diagnosis of early pregnancy complication as well as later gestation twins and malpresentation. Midwives who have undergone focused 6-week limited obstetric US training proved capable of diagnosing twins and fetal presentation with high sensitivity and specificity.
Authors: Heidi Harbison Kimberly; Alice Murray; Maria Mennicke; Andrew Liteplo; Jason Lew; J Stephen Bohan; Lynda Tyer-Viola; Roy Ahn; Thomas Burke; Vicki E Noble Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: E Doehring-Schwerdtfeger; I M Abdel-Rahim; M Dittrich; Q Mohamed-Ali; D Franke; R Kardorff; J Richter; J H Ehrich Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 1992-06 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Sachita Shah; Vicki E Noble; Irenee Umulisa; J M V Dushimiyimana; Gene Bukhman; Joia Mukherjee; Michael Rich; Henry Epino Journal: Int J Emerg Med Date: 2008-09-25
Authors: Robert Nathan; Jonathan O Swanson; William Marks; Nicole Goldsmith; Cheryl Vance; Ntale Brian Sserwanga; David Swanson; Elizabeth M McClure; Holly Franklin; Waseem Mirza; Musaku Mwenechanya; David Muyodi; Lester Figuero; Victor Lokomba Bolamba; Robert L Goldenberg; Irma Sayury Pineda Journal: Ultrasound Q Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 1.657
Authors: Naoko Kozuki; Luke C Mullany; Subarna K Khatry; Ram K Ghimire; Sharma Paudel; Karin Blakemore; Christine Bird; James M Tielsch; Steven C LeClerq; Joanne Katz Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Delilah Kimambo; Samuel Kennedy; Engerasiya Kifai; Neema Kailembo; Christie Eichberg; Sarah Markosky; Ishan Shah; Eric Powers; Peter Zwerner; Susan E Dorman; Mohamed Janabi; Richard Bayer Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: B W Bresnahan; E Vodicka; J B Babigumira; A M Malik; F Yego; A Lokangaka; B M Chitah; Z Bauer; H Chavez; J L Moore; L P Garrison; J O Swanson; D Swanson; E M McClure; R L Goldenberg; F Esamai; A L Garces; E Chomba; S Saleem; A Tshefu; C L Bose; M Bauserman; W Carlo; S Bucher; E A Liechty; R O Nathan Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Jonathan O Swanson; David Plotner; Holly L Franklin; David L Swanson; Victor Lokomba Bolamba; Adrien Lokangaka; Irma Sayury Pineda; Lester Figueroa; Ana Garces; David Muyodi; Fabian Esamai; Nancy Kanaiza; Waseem Mirza; Farnaz Naqvi; Sarah Saleem; Musaku Mwenechanya; Melody Chiwila; Dorothy Hamsumonde; Elizabeth M McClure; Robert L Goldenberg; Robert O Nathan Journal: Glob Health Sci Pract Date: 2016-12-28
Authors: Bénilde Marie Ange Tiemtoré-Kambou; Aischa Madina Napon; Tounougma Kaboré; Nina Astrid Ndé Ouédraogo; Lisa Kéré Nidjergou; Mohammed Tall; Issouf Franck N'dama Sieba; Abel Bamouni; Ousséini Diallo; Rabiou Cissé Journal: Pan Afr Med J Date: 2021-03-18