A simplified fetal biophysical profile

International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Volumn 61, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 9-14

  Petrovic O ^a   Skunca E ^a   Matejcic N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RIJEKA   (Croatia)

Author keywords

Breathing movements; Fetal assessment; Modified fetal biophysical profile; Outclinic patients; Perinatal outcome; Vibratory acoustic stimulation

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; BREATHING MECHANICS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FETUS; FETUS BREATHING; FETUS MONITORING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRODUCTIVITY;

EID: 0032053563     PISSN: 00207292     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7292(98)00009-5     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. [1] Manning FA, Platt LD, Sipos L. Antepartum fetal evaluation: Development of a fetal biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980;136:787.
2. [2] Vintzileos AM, Campbell WA. The biophysical profile - predictor of fetal condition at birth. Obstet Gynecol Rep 1989;1:140.
3. [3] Petrović O, Frković A, Rukavina B. Efficacy of the fetal biophysical profile and its individual components in predicting poor perinatal outcome. Acta Fac Med Fluminensis 1993;18:99.
4. [4] Nageotte MP, Towers CV, Asrat T, Freeman RK, Dorchester W. The value of a negative antepartum test: Contraction stress test and modified biophysical. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:231.
5. [5] Inglis SR, Druzin ML, Wagner WE, Kogut E. The use of vibroacoustic stimulation during the abnormal and equivocal biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol 1993;182:371.
6. [6] Manning FA, Morrison I, Lange IR, Harman CR, Chamberlain PF. Fetal biophysical profile scoring: selective use of the nonstress test. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156:709.
7. [7] Petrović O. Modified biophysical profile. Gynecol Perinatol 1993;3:161.
8. [8] Prodan M, Petrović O, Frković A, Rukavina B. Effect of external vibratory acoustic stimulation on fetal heart activity and movements. Gynecol Perinatol 1992;1:33.
9. [9] Petrović O, Frković A, Matejèić N. Fetal biophysical profile and vibratory acoustic stimulation in high-risk pregnancies. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1995;50:11.
10. [10] Haller H, Petrović O, Rukavina B. Fetal transverse cerebellar diameter/abdominal circumference ratio in assessing fetal size. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1995;50:159.
11. [11] James DK, Parker MJ, Smoleniec JS. Comprehensive fetal assessment with three ultrasonographic characteristics. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1486.
12. [12] Magann EF, Nolan TE, Hess W, Martin RW, Whitworth NS, Morrison JC. Measurement of amniotic fluid volume: Accuracy of ultrasonography techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:1533.
13. [13] Newnham JP, Patterson LL, James IR, Diepeveen DA, Reid SE. An evaluation of the efficacy of Doppler flow velocity waveform analysis as a screening test in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:403.
14. [14] Ribbert LCM, Nicolaides KH, Visser GHA, Prediction of fetal acidemia in intrauterine growth retardation: comparison of quantified fetal activity with biophysical profile score. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1993;100:653.
15. [15] Alessandri LM, Stanley FJ, Garner JB, Newnham J, Walters BNJ. A case - control study of unexplained antepartum stillbirths. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1992;99:711.
16. [16] Pillai M, James D. The importance of the behavioural state in biophysical assessment of the term human fetus. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1990;97:1130.
17. [17] Sarinoglu C, Dell J, Mercer BM, Sibai BM. Fetal startle response observed under ultrasonography: a good predictor of a reassuring biophysical profile. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:599.