Screening and prevention of preterm birth: how is it done in clinical practice?
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetricia, ISSN: 0100-7203, Vol: 46
2024
- 8Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting 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
- Captures8
- Readers8
Article Description
Objective: To ascertain how screening for preterm birth is performed among obstetricians working in public and private practice in a middle-income country. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 265 obstetrician-gynecologists employed at public and private facilities. An online questionnaire was administered, with items designed to collect data on prematurity screening and prevention practices. Results: The mean age of respondents was 44.5 years; 78.5% were female, and 97.7% had completed a medical residency program. Universal screening (i.e., by ultrasound measurement of cervical length) was carried out by only 11.3% of respondents in public practice; 43% request transvaginal ultrasound if the manual exam is abnormal, and 74.6% request it in pregnant women with risk factors for preterm birth. Conversely, 60.7% of respondents in private practice performed universal screening. This difference in screening practices between public and private practice was highly significant (p < 0.001). Nearly all respondents (90.6%) reported prescribing vaginal progesterone for short cervix. Conclusion: In the setting of this study, universal ultrasound screening to prevent preterm birth was used by just over half of doctors in private practice. In public facilities, screening was even less common. Use of vaginal progesterone in cervical shortening was highly prevalent. There is an unmet need for formal protocols for screening and prevention of preterm birth in middle-income settings.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85193673634&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.61622/rbgo/2024rbgo32; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38765518; https://journalrbgo.org/article/screening-and-prevention-of-preterm-birth-how-is-it-done-in-clinical-practice/; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-72032024000100206&lng=en&tlng=en; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0100-72032024000100206&lng=en&tlng=en; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-72032024000100206; http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0100-72032024000100206; https://dx.doi.org/10.61622/rbgo/2024rbgo32
Federação das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know