Ad
related to: what is quicksfv used for in pregnancy results chart for women over 40 fullwomenscarecenter.org has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Vibroacoustic stimulation (VAS), sometimes referred to as fetal vibroacoustic stimulation or fetal acoustic stimulation test (FAST), is the application of a vibratory sound stimulus to the abdomen of a pregnant woman to induce FHR (fetal heart rate) accelerations.
Immunologic pregnancy tests were introduced in 1960 when Wide and Gemzell presented a test based on in-vitro hemagglutination inhibition. This was a first step away from in-vivo pregnancy testing [40] [41] and initiated a series of improvements in pregnancy testing leading to the contemporary at-home testing. [41]
A biophysical profile (BPP) is a prenatal ultrasound evaluation of fetal well-being involving a scoring system, [1] with the score being termed Manning's score. [2] It is often done when a non-stress test (NST) is non reactive, or for other obstetrical indications.
A more recent trend in the United Kingdom has been the replacement of the kick chart with jewelry-based counters. A pregnancy bracelet is a wearable form of kick counter. The bracelets available work on similar principles: the baby kicks, the mother moves a marker. The idea is that this is more practical than using a pen and paper.
Transvaginal scans usually provide clearer pictures during early pregnancy and in obese women. Also used is Doppler sonography which detects the heartbeat of the fetus. Doppler sonography can be used to evaluate the pulsations in the fetal heart and bloods vessels for signs of abnormalities. [5]
A nonstress test (NST) is a screening test used in pregnancy to assess fetal status by means of the fetal heart rate and its responsiveness. A cardiotocograph is used to monitor the fetal heart rate and presence or absence of uterine contractions. The test is typically termed "reactive" (also "reassuring") or "nonreactive" (also "nonreassuring ...
A review in 2003 came to the conclusion that pelvimetry does not change the management of pregnant women, and recommended that all women should be allowed a trial of labor regardless of pelvimetry results. [2] It considered routine performance of pelvimetry to be a waste of time, a potential liability, and an unnecessary discomfort. [2]
When used to avoid pregnancy, the standard days method has been estimated [22] to have perfect-use efficacy of 95% and typical-use efficacy of 88%. [ 20 ] [ 21 ] These figures are based on a 2002 study in Bolivia, Peru, and the Philippines of women of reproductive age having menstrual cycles between 26 and 32 days, [ 20 ] [ 23 ] : 505 and on a ...