Anthropometric measurements in the diagnosis of pelvic size: An analysis of maternal height and shoe size and computed tomography pelvimetric data

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Volumn 276, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 523-528

  Awonuga, Awoniyi O ^a   Merhi, Zaher ^b   Awonuga, Modupe T ^a   Samuels, Terri Ann ^b   Waller, Jennifer ^a   Pring, David ^c  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c YORK HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Height; Pelvic size; Pelvimetry; Shoe size; Weight

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANTHROPOMETRY; ARTICLE; BODY WEIGHT; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEIGHT; HUMAN; MATERNAL CARE; OBSTETRIC CARE; PELVIC GIRDLE; PELVIMETRY;

ADULT; ANTHROPOMETRY; BODY HEIGHT; CEPHALOPELVIC DISPROPORTION; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; FOOT; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; PELVIS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; ROC CURVE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 34548665072     PISSN: 09320067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-007-0370-0     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Baird D (1949) Social factors in obstetrics. Lancet i:1079-1083
2. Barton JJ, Garbaciak JA, Ryan GM (1982) The efficacy of X-ray pelvimetry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 143:304-307
3. Bernard RM (1952) The shape and size of the female pelvis. Edinb Med J 59:1-15
4. Connolly G, Naidoo C, Conroy RM, Byrne P, McKenna P (2003) A new predictor of cephalopelvic disproportion? J Obstet Gynaecol 23:27-29
5. Dobson J, Nelson J (1988) CT pelvimetry: replacing conventional with digital. Radiography 54:18-19
6. Fine EA, Bracken M, Berkowitz RL (1980) An evaluation of the usefulness of x-ray pelvimetry. Comparison of the Thoms' and modified ball method of of pelvimetry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 137:15-20
7. Frame S, Moore J, Peters A, Hall D (1985) maternal height and shoe size as predictors of pelvic disproportion: an assessment. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 92:1239-1245
8. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29-36
9. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839-843
10. Kennedy JL, Greenwald E (1981) Correlation of shoe size and obstetric outcome: an anthropometric study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 140:466-467
11. Joyce DN, Giwa-Osagie F, Stevenson GW (1975) Role of pelvimetry in active management of labour. Br Med J 4:505-507
12. Khan KS, Chien PFW, Dwarakanath LS (1999) Logistic regression models in obstetrics and gynaecology literature. Obstet Gynecol 93:1014-1024
13. Krishnamurthy S, Fairlie F, Cameron AD, Walker JJ, Mackemzie JR (1991) The role of postnatal X-ray pelvimetry after caesarean section in the management of subsequent delivery. Br J Obstet Gynecol 98:716-718
14. Louw GJ, Davison B (1996) Is shoe size a reliable obstetric predictor of cephalopelvic disproportion? S Afr Med J 86(9 Suppl):1206
15. Mahmood TA, Campbell DM, Wilson AW (1988) Maternal height, shoe size, and outcome of labour in white primigravidas: a prospective anthropometric study. BMJ 297:515-517
16. Mahmood TA (1989) Maternal height, birthweight, obstetric conjugate and their influence on the management of parturients with a previous cesarean scar. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 68:595-598
17. Norman GR, Streiner DL (1994) Screwups, oddballs, and other vagaries of science. Locating outliers, handling missing data, and transformations. In: Norman GR, Streiner DL (eds) Biostatistics: The bare essentials. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 202-210
18. Pattinson RC (2003) Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at term (Cochrane review). In: The Cochrane library, Issue 1. Update Software, Oxford
19. Prasad M, Al-Taher H (2002) Maternal height and labour outcome. Obstet Gynecol 22:513-515
20. Russell JGB, Richards B (1971) A review of pelvimetry data. Br J Radiol 76:817-820
21. Seitchik J, Rao VRR (1982) Caesarean delivery in nulliparous women for failed oxytocin-augmented labour: route of delivery in subsequent pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 143:393-397
22. Swets J (1988) Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240:1285-1293
23. Thubisi MM, Ebrahim A, Moodley J, Shweni PM (1993) Vaginal delivery after previous caesarean section: is x-ray pelvimetry necessary? Br J Obstet Gynecol 100:421-424
24. Tsu VD (1992) Maternal height and age: risk factors for cephalopelvic disproportion in Zimbabwe. Int J Epidemiol 21:941-946
25. Van Bogaert LJ (1999) The relation between height, foot length, pelvic adequacy and mode of delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 82:195-199
26. Walker J (1958) Prolonged pregnancy syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 76:1231-1247