Article Sidebar
Published:
Feb 18, 2005Article Details
Copyright remains in the Author’s name. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial Works License. Authors are required to complete and sign an Author Agreement form that outlines Author and Publisher rights and terms of publication. The Agreement form should be uploaded along with other submissions files and any submission will be considered incomplete without it [forthcoming].
Material submitted for publication in the SAMJ is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement. The SAMJ does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors.
Previously published images
If an image/figure has been previously published, permission to reproduce or alter it must be obtained by the authors from the original publisher and the figure legend must give full credit to the original source. This credit should be accompanied by a letter indicating that permission to reproduce the image has been granted to the author/s. This letter should be uploaded as a supplementary file during submission.
Main Article Content
Comparison between a newly developed PC-based Doppler umbilical artery waveform analyser and a commercial unit
Abstract
Design. A cohort study.
Setting. The fetal evaluation clinic (FEC) at Tygerberg Hospital.
Subjects. Patients referred to the FEC at Tygerberg Hospital with suspected chronic placental insufficiency.
Outcome measures. The correlation coefficients indicating the strength of the relationship between the two devices and their agreement using the method of Bland and Altman.
Results. A total of 248 patients were studied. The mean RIs of the first Doppler assessment were 0.69 (standard deviation (SD) 0.11) and 0.67 (SD 0.11) using the Vasoflow and Umbiflow respectively. The Pearson's correlation coefficient comparing the RI of the first test was 0.85. The degree of agreement between the two methods was excellent, the mean differences being very small (< 0.024) with tight confidence intervals. One hundred and ninety-four patients (78.2%) of patients remained in the same percentile category with both the Vasoflow and Umbiflow.
Conclusions. The accuracy of the Umbiflow has been proved. A non-significant trend towards slightly lower values needs to be considered. This could be addressed by changing the percentile cut-off to slightly lower values.
S Afr Med J 2005; 95: 62-64.
