Getting the size right: Are clinicians ready for it?
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, ISSN: 0301-2115, Vol: 280, Page: 154-159
2023
- 5Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures5
- Readers5
Article Description
Digital examination has many uses in obstetrics and gynaecology, including cervical assessment in labour and measuring for vaginal pessaries. Clinicians must be adequately trained to perform accurate digital assessments and use this information to make decisions. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of a clinician’s estimate for three different measuring tasks and assess whether there was any difference in the accuracy in relation to seniority or job role. Doctors and midwives were recruited from two perineal trauma training events. Estimates and measurements for three different activities were recorded: length of own index finger, length of an anal sphincter model and cervical dilatation at two different dilatations (7 cm and 9 cm) using a pocket guide cervical dilatation tool. The results were analysed for accuracy of measurements according to job role and seniority. A total of 369 participants took part. Only 4.6% of participants accurately (to 0.1 cm) estimated the length of their index finger (0% of midwives and 5.5% of doctors). There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) when comparing average differences between estimated and actual lengths measured for doctors and midwives for almost all measurements. When comparing doctors based on seniority there was no significant difference in the accuracy of estimated lengths. A higher percentage of midwives than doctors were accurate at both 7 cm (22% vs 16.1%) and 9 cm (30.5% vs 29.5%) dilated. We found that accuracy was poor for both doctors and midwives when asked to estimate various measurements. We suggest that training will improve awareness of finger length and therefore improve accuracy when performing digital examinations in clinical practice.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301211522006121; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.11.026; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85144036776&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36495777; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301211522006121; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.11.026
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know