MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING VS. TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUND for CERVICAL LENGTH ASSESSMENT in the SECOND HALF of PREGNANCY

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorBrandão, Rosieny Souza [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorPires, Claudio Rodrigues [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorSouza, Eduardo de [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorAvanza, Leonardo Luiz [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorMattar, Rosiane [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorAraujo Junior, Edward [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorMarcondes, Luciano [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorNardozza, Machado [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorMoron, Antonio Fernandes [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-24T13:59:32Z
dc.date.available2016-01-24T13:59:32Z
dc.date.issued2010-04-01
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this cross-sectional study involving 42 women between 20 and 39 weeks gestation was to compare transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) vs. magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the assessment of cervical length measurement during the second half of pregnancy and to evaluate the reproducibility of cervical measurements obtained through MRI. Cervical length was measured through TVUS by a single examiner. On the same day, all women also had MRI and cervical length was assessed by two independent blinded observers. There were no significant differences in the mean cervical length obtained through TVUS and MRI (paired t-test, p = 0.191). the Bland-Altman test indicated concordance between measurements obtained through methods as well as good intra- and interobserver reproducibility for MRI measurements. Intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.990 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.982 to 0.995; p < 0.001) for measurements performed using MRI by two different observers and 0.995 (95% CI: 0.991 to 0.997; p < 0.001) for measurements performed using the same method by a single operator. Cervical length measured through TVUS and MRI does not differ significantly. There is a good reproducibility of cervical measurements obtained through MRI. (E-mail: crpires@ uol.com.br) (C) 2010 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.en
dc.description.affiliationSão Paulo Fed Univ UNIFESP, Dept Obstet, BR-01250010 São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnifespSão Paulo Fed Univ UNIFESP, Dept Obstet, BR-01250010 São Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.sourceWeb of Science
dc.format.extent571-575
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2009.12.002
dc.identifier.citationUltrasound in Medicine and Biology. New York: Elsevier B.V., v. 36, n. 4, p. 571-575, 2010.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2009.12.002
dc.identifier.issn0301-5629
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/32434
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000278012500005
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.
dc.relation.ispartofUltrasound in Medicine and Biology
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.rights.licensehttp://www.elsevier.com/about/open-access/open-access-policies/article-posting-policy
dc.subjectPregnancyen
dc.subjectCervixen
dc.subjectTransvaginal sonographyen
dc.subjectMagnetic resonance imagingen
dc.titleMAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING VS. TRANSVAGINAL ULTRASOUND for CERVICAL LENGTH ASSESSMENT in the SECOND HALF of PREGNANCYen
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
Arquivos
Coleções
EPM - Artigos