Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 6742386

Predicting the obstetric work-load.

R S Cormack
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The daily variation in the work-load of a maternity unit during 1982 was analysed. The data fitted the Poisson distribution quite well, which suggests that future work-loads can be predicted by this method. Other clinical data of a similar kind should be amenable to the same analysis.

Explore related subjects

Delivery, ObstetricFemaleHospital DepartmentsHumansInfant, NewbornObstetrics and Gynecology Department, HospitalPregnancyProbabilityTime FactorsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R S Cormack. 1984. Predicting the obstetric work-load.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1984.tb07360.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1998

Prenatal diagnosis of gastrointestinal anomalies with ultrasound. What have we learned?

The use of routine obstetric ultrasound has been shown to accurately diagnose fetal gastrointestinal anomalies, both during and after the midtrimester. These are among the most accurately diagnosed of all anomalies, comprising 5-7% of all fetal anomalies. From a review of the literature it is clear that the use of routine ultrasound allows: (1) the detection of multiple anomalies that are often present and affect outcome significantly, (2) preparation for delivery at a tertiary center where neonatal surgical experience will allow optimal outcome, and (3) decisions about mode and timing of delivery in cases where this is important, i.e., cases of omphalocele and gastroschisis.

Delivery, Obstetric↗
PubMed1998

[Determination of the expected day of delivery--ultrasound has not been shown to be more accurate than the calendar method].

It has been claimed that the expected day of delivery (EDD) determined on the basis of an ultrasound scan is more accurate than using a calendar method. The aim of this paper is to assess the evidence in support of this claim. A critical review of the methodologically best research revealed that among women with regular cycles and know first day of the last menstrual period, Naegele's rule predicted the EDD to be 3.3 days too early, on average, whereas prediction based on ultrasound scans was 2.0 days too late. The standard deviations of the two distributions were the same. After correction for the systematic biases, the two methods of prediction were thus equally precise. It is concluded that the EDD should be calculated by adding 283 days to the date of the last period rather than by adding 280 days. For women with regular cycles and known first day of the last menstrual period, ultrasound dating does not lead to a more precise prediction.

Delivery, Obstetric↗