The rapid biophysical profile for assessment of fetal well-being

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 431-436

  Tongsong, Theera ^a   Piyamongkol, Wirawit ^a   Anantachote, Athittaya ^a   Pulphutapong, Karune ^a  

^a Faculty of Medicine Chiang Mai University   (Thailand)

Author keywords

Fetal distress; Nonstress test; Rapid biophysical profile

Indexed keywords

AMNION FLUID; ARTICLE; BIOPHYSICS; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; FETUS; FETUS DISTRESS; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; FETUS HEART RATE; FETUS MONITORING; FETUS MOVEMENT; HIGH RISK PREGNANCY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEWBORN; PREDICTION; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; STRESS;

EID: 0033376883     PISSN: 13418076     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.1999.tb01189.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Freeman RK, Anderson G, Dorchester W. A prospective multiinstitutional study of antepartum fetal heart rate monitoring. II. Contraction stress test versus nonstress test for primary surveillance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 143: 778-781
2. Nageotte MP, Towers CV, Asrat T, Freeman RK. Perinatal outcome with the modified biophysical profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170: 1672-1676
3. Miller DA, Rabello YA, Paul RH. The modified biophysical profile: Antepartum testing in the 1990s. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174: 812-817
4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Antepartum fetal surveillance. Technical Bulletin No. 188, January 1994
5. Divon MY, Platt LD, Cantrell CJ, Smith CV, Yeh SY, Paul RH. Evoked fetal startle response: A possible intrauterine neurological examination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153: 454-456
6. Chutiwongse S, Tannirandorn Y, Sukcharoen N, Witoonpanich P, Snidvongs W, Phaosavasdi S. Maternal perception of sound-provoked fetal movement as a test of antepartum fetal well-being. J Med Assoc Thai 1991; 74: 257-263
7. Tannirandorn Y, Witoonpanich P, Snidvongs W, Phaosavasdi S. New rapid test for antepartum assessment of fetal well-being. Thai J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 4: 77-84
8. Rayburn WF. Clinical significance of percentile fetal motion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 138: 210
9. Freeman RK, Garite TJ, Nageotte MP. Fetal heart rate monitoring. 2nd ed. Williams and Wilkins, 1991
10. Manning FA, Morrison I, Lange I, et al. Fetal assessment based upon fetal BPP scoring: Experience in 12,620 referred high-risk pregnancies. I. Perinatal mortality by frequency and etiology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 343-350
11. Manning FA, Morrison I, Lange IR, Harman CR. Fetal biophysical profile scoring: The selective use of the nonstress test. 1990; 136: 709
12. Luz NP. Auditory evoked response of the human fetus: Simplified methodology. J Perinat Med 1991; 19: 177-183
13. Muller H, Meinel K, Hampe K. Methods, value and limits of prenatal hearing diagnosis. Zentralbl Gynakol 1996; 118: 435-140
14. Stelzer E, Dederichs M. Wolff F. The prognostic value of the acoustic stimulation test for fetal well being and neonatal status. Controlled acoustic stimulation of the fetus in the last pregnancy trimester. Z Geburtshilfe Perinatal 1990; 194: 104-109
15. Nyman M, Westgren M. Maternal perception of sound-provoked fetal movements in low-risk pregnancies during the third trimester. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 566-567
16. Gagnon R, Hunse C, Carmichael L, et al. Human fetal responses to vibratory acoustic stimulation from twenty six weeks to term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 1375
17. Ohel G, Horowitz E, Linder N, Sohmer H. Neonatal auditory acquity following in utero vibratory acoustic stimulation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157: 440-441
18. Arulkumaran S, Skurr B, Tong H, Kek LP, Yeoh K, Ratnam SS. No evidence of hearing loss due to fetal acoustic stimulation test. Obstet Gynecol 1991: 78: 283-285