Population differences affect the interpretation of fetal nonstress test results

被引:7
|
作者
Johnson, TRB [1 ]
Paine, LL [1 ]
Strobino, DM [1 ]
Witter, FR [1 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ & Hosp, Dept Gynecol & Obstet, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Fetal Assessment Ctr, Baltimore, MD USA
关键词
antepartum testing; nonstress test; racial difference;
D O I
10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70082-1
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: The object of the study was to determine whether population differences exist with respect to outcomes of women with reactive and nonreactive nonstress test results. STUDY DESIGN: An epidemiologic evaluation was conducted on 2579 women who underwent nonstress tests in the Fetal Assessment Center of the Johns Hopkins Hospital within a week of delivery. Risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and postterm pregnancy were used in a logistic regression model to evaluate the ability of the nonstress test to predict outcomes including proxies of fetal distress and fetal and neonatal death. The sensitivities, specificities, and predictive values of the nonstress test for predicting these outcomes in cohorts of black and white women were also determined. RESULTS: The nonstress test was consistently more sensitive for black women than for white women in predicting several perinatal outcomes, but specificity and negative predictive value were consistently lower for black women. The positive predictive value for fetal and neonatal death was higher for white women than for black women. Although the nonreactive nonstress test result seemed to be predictive of certain perinatal events, the odds ratio for predicting perinatal mortality in any study population was no greater than when the nonstress test result was reassuring. CONCLUSIONS: Epidemiologic characteristics affecting test results, such as disease prevalence and population differences, may lead to clinically significant differences in outcome prediction when these tests' results are used. These differences should be considered in the implementation of antepartum fetal testing programs.
引用
收藏
页码:779 / 783
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] THE ROLE OF FETAL MOVEMENT AMOUNT ON PREDICTING THE NONSTRESS TEST RESULTS
    Kinas, Murat Gokhan
    Sezer, Selda Demircan
    Yuksel, Hasan
    Odabasi, Ali Riza
    Ture, Mevlut
    [J]. TURKISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2011, 8 (04) : 238 - 243
  • [2] CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETATION OF A REACTIVE NONSTRESS TEST
    WILLIS, DC
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1987, 157 (01) : 213 - 213
  • [3] NONSTRESS TEST PREDICTION OF FETAL STATUS
    GANDHI, J
    GUGLIUCCI, CL
    [J]. JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, 1982, 27 (02) : 80 - 88
  • [4] Comparison of visual and computerized interpretation of nonstress test results in a randomized controlled trial
    Bracero, LA
    Morgan, S
    Byrne, DW
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1999, 181 (05) : 1254 - 1258
  • [5] FETAL DISTRESS FOLLOWING A REACTIVE NONSTRESS TEST
    SCHMIDT, PL
    THORNEYCROFT, IH
    GOEBELSMANN, U
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1980, 136 (07) : 960 - 962
  • [6] NONSTRESS TEST FOR THE ANTEPARTUM ASSESSMENT OF FETAL RESERVE
    LEE, CY
    DRUKKER, B
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1979, 134 (04) : 460 - 470
  • [7] Maternal mood and anxiety effects on the fetal nonstress test
    McCauley, Emily
    Rood, Kara
    Benedict, Jason
    Koenig, Natalia
    Schaffir, Jonathan
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY MFM, 2023, 5 (08)
  • [8] THE EFFECTS OF MATERNAL EATING ON FETAL NONSTRESS TEST REACTIVITY
    HOLE, JW
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION, 1987, 87 (10): : 670 - 673
  • [9] A CONTROLLED TRIAL OF SELF NONSTRESS TEST VERSUS ASSISTED NONSTRESS TEST IN THE EVALUATION OF FETAL WELL-BEING
    REECE, EA
    HAGAY, Z
    GAROFALO, J
    HOBBINS, JC
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1992, 166 (02) : 489 - 492
  • [10] CONDITIONS AFFECTING NONSTRESS TEST-RESULTS
    RAYBURN, WF
    MOTLEY, ME
    ZUSPAN, FP
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1982, 59 (04): : 490 - 493