Objectives Our study aims to determine the interobserver variability of different ultrasound measurements (pubis-cervix distance, pubis-uterine fundus distance, and pubis-Douglascul-de-sac distance) previously analyzed for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of uterine prolapse (UP) and cervical elongation CE without UP. Materials and methods We conducted a prospective observational study with 40 patients scheduled to undergo surgical correction of UP and CE without UP. All patients underwent pelvic floor ultrasound examination by an examiner (E1) who acquired ultrasound images. Using these images, E1 measured the distances for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of UP and CE without UP, and these distances were compared with those measured by the other examiner (E2). Values were analyzed by calculating ICCs with 95% CIs. Results For UP, excellent reliability was obtained for all measurements except the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest, which was moderate (ICC 0.596; p = 0.028) and for the difference between the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest and during the Valsalva maneuver, which was good (ICC 0.691; p < 0.0005). For CE without UP, interobserver reliability was excellent for all measurements analyzed except the pubis-cervix measurement during the Valsalva maneuver, which was moderate (ICC 0.535; p = 0.052) and for the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest, which was good (ICC 0.768; p < 0.0005). Conclusions There is excellent interobserver reliability in measurements of the difference in the distance from the pubic symphysis to the uterine fundus at rest and during the Valsalva maneuver for both UP and CE without UP, which are used for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of UP and CE without UP.

No abstract

Background Gestational diabetes mellitus is associated with increased incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes including newborns large for gestational age, macrosomia, preeclampsia, polyhydramnios, stillbirth, and neonatal morbidity. Thus, fetal growth should be monitored by ultrasound to assess for fetal overnutrition, and thereby, its clinical consequence, macrosomia. However, it is not clear which reference curve to use to define the limits of normality. Our aim is to determine which method, INTERGROWTH21st or customized curves, better identifies the nutritional status of newborns of diabetic mothers. Methods This retrospective cohort study compared the risk of malnutrition in SGA newborns and the risk of overnutrition in LGA newborns using INTERGROWTH21st and customized birth weight references in gestational diabetes. The nutritional status of newborns was assessed using the ponderal index . Additionally, to determine the ability of both methods in the identification of neonatal malnutrition and overnutrition, we calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and likelihood ratios. Results 231 pregnant women with GDM were included in the study. The rate of SGA indentified by INTERGROWTH21st was 4.7% vs 10.7% identified by the customized curves. The rate of LGA identified by INTERGROWTH21st was 25.6% vs 13.2% identified by the customized method. Newborns identified as SGA by the customized method showed a higher risk of malnutrition than those identified as SGA by INTERGROWTH21st. (RR 4.24 vs 2.5). LGA newborns according to the customized method also showed a higher risk of overnutrition than those classified as LGA according to INTERGROWTH21st. (RR 5.26 vs 3.57). In addition, the positive predictive value of the customized method was superior to that of INTERGROWTH21st in the identification of malnutrition (32% vs 27.27%), severe malnutrition (22.73% vs 20%), overnutrition (51.61% vs 32.20%) and severe overnutrition (28.57% vs 14.89%). Conclusions In pregnant women with DMG, the ability of customized fetal growth curves to identify newborns with alterations in nutritional status appears to exceed that of INTERGROWTH21st

Background Gestational diabetes mellitus is associated with increased incidence of adverse perinatal outcomes including newborns large for gestational age, macrosomia, preeclampsia, polihydramnios, stillbirth, and neonatal morbidity. Thus, fetal growth should be monitored by ultrasound to limit fetal overnutrition, and thereby, its clinical consequence, macrosomia. However, it is not clear which reference curve to use to define the limits of normality. Our aim is to determine which method, INTERGROWTH21st or customized curves, better identifies the nutritional status of newborns of diabetic mothers.Methods This retrospective cohort study compared the risk of malnutrition in SGA newborns and the risk of overnutrition in LGA newborns using INTERGROWTH21st and customized birth weight references in gestational diabetes. Additionally, to determine the ability of both methods in the identification of neonatal malnutrition and overnutrition, we calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and likelihood ratios.Results 231 pregnant women with GDM were included in the study. The rate of SGA indentified by INTERGROWTH21st was 4.7% vs 10.7% identified by the customized curves. The rate of LGA identified by INTERGROWT21st was 25.6% vs 13.2% identified by the customized method. Newborns identified as SGA by the customized method showed a higher risk of malnutrition than those identified as SGA by INTERGROWTH21st.(RR 4.24 vs 2.5). LGA newborns according to the customized method also showed a higher risk of overnutrition than those classified as LGA according to INTERGROWTH21st. (RR 5.26 vs 3.57). In addition, the positive predictive value of the customized method was superior to that of INTERGROWTH21st in the identification of malnutrition (32% vs 27.27%), severe malnutrition (22.73% vs 20%), overnutrition (51.61% vs 32.20%) and severe overnutrition (28.57% vs 14.89%).Conclusions In pregnant women with GDM, the ability of customized fetal growth curves to identify the newborns with alterations in nutritional status exceeds that of INTERGROWTH21st.