Literature DB >> 9620566

How accurate are antenatal weight measurements? A survey of hospital and community clinics in a South Thames Region NHS Trust.

H E Harris1, G T Ellison, M Holliday, C Nickson.   

Abstract

The accuracy of antenatal weight data recorded in obstetric notes was investigated in the 45 hospital and community antenatal clinics within a South Thames Region NHS Trust. In order to assess the reliability and validity of all 60 clinic scales triplicate measurements of body weight for low- and high-weight subjects were recorded on each clinical scale and on a calibrated standard scale. The quality of weighing practice during antenatal care was investigated by means of semi-structured interviews conducted with all 33 midwives who currently provide antenatal care within the Trust. Beam balances had the highest reliability and validity, whereas scales with spring mechanisms were the least accurate. Only 40% of the clinics surveyed had access to beam balances, yet most of the maternal weight measurements recorded during antenatal care are likely to be out by no more than 1-1.5% of body weight. Weighing practice was generally inconsistent, and serial measurements of maternal body weight collected during pregnancy are probably too imprecise to provide a sensitive screen for conditions associated with unusual weight gain and too inaccurate to assess compliance with guidelines for weight gain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9620566     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3016.1998.00100.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol        ISSN: 0269-5022            Impact factor:   3.980


  6 in total

1.  Precision in weighing: a comparison of scales found in physician offices, fitness centers, and weight loss centers.

Authors:  Risa J Stein; C Keith Haddock; Walker S C Poston; Dana Catanese; John A Spertus
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.792

Review 2.  Assessment of weight changes during and after pregnancy: practical approaches.

Authors:  Amanda R Amorim; Yvonne Linné; Gilberto Kac; Paulo M Lourenço
Journal:  Matern Child Nutr       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  The feasibility of multimodality remote monitoring of maternal physiology during pregnancy.

Authors:  Agata P Zielinska; Edward Mullins; Christoph Lees
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 1.817

4.  Self-reported pre-pregnancy weight versus weight measured at first prenatal visit: effects on categorization of pre-pregnancy body mass index.

Authors:  Erica Holland; Tiffany A Moore Simas; Darrah K Doyle Curiale; Xun Liao; Molly E Waring
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2013-12

5.  Impact of instrument error on the estimated prevalence of overweight and obesity in population-based surveys.

Authors:  Anna Biehl; Ragnhild Hovengen; Haakon E Meyer; Jøran Hjelmesaeth; Jørgen Meisfjord; Else-Karin Grøholt; Mathieu Roelants; Bjørn Heine Strand
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-02-18       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Accuracy and consistency of weights provided by home bathroom scales.

Authors:  Meredith Yorkin; Kim Spaccarotella; Jennifer Martin-Biggers; Virginia Quick; Carol Byrd-Bredbenner
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-12-17       Impact factor: 3.295

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.