Newman-Peacock prognostic system score Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

  • Original Article

    Applying the Newman-Peacock Prognostic System to a Portuguese Obstetrical Population – A Useful Tool?

    Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2018;40(1):04-10

    Summary

    Original Article

    Applying the Newman-Peacock Prognostic System to a Portuguese Obstetrical Population – A Useful Tool?

    Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2018;40(1):04-10

    DOI 10.1055/s-0037-1606243

    Views3

    Abstract

    Background

    External cephalic version (ECV) is a maneuver that enables the rotation of the non-cephalic fetus to a cephalic presentation. The Newman-Peacock (NP) index, which was proposed by Newman et al. in a study published in 1993, was described as a prediction tool of the success of this procedure; it was validated in a North-American population, and three prognostic groups were identified.

    Purpose

    To evaluate the value of the NP score for the prediction of a successful ECV in a Portuguese obstetrical population, and to evaluate maternal and fetal safety.

    Methods

    We present an observational study conducted from 1997-2016 with pregnant women at 36-38 weeks of pregnancy who were candidates for external cephalic version in our department. Demographic and obstetrical data were collected, including the parameters included in the NP index (parity, cervical dilatation, estimated fetal weight, placental location and fetal station). The calculation of the NP score was performed, and the percentages of success were compared among the three prognostic groups and with the original study by Newman et al. The performance of the score was determined using the Student t-test, the Chi-squared test, and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

    Results

    In total, 337 women were included. The overall success rate was of 43.6%. The univariate analysis revealed that multiparity, posterior placentation and a less engaged fetus were factors that favored a successful maneuver (p < 0.05). Moreover, a higher amniotic fluid index was also a relevant predictive factor (p < 0.05). The Newman-Peacock score had a poorer performance in our population compared with that of the sample of the original study, but we still found a positive relationship between higher scores and higher prediction of success (p < 0.001). No fetal or maternal morbidities were registered.

    Conclusions

    The Newman-Peacock score had a poorer performance among our population compared to its performance in the original study, but the results suggest that this score is still a useful tool to guide our clinical practice and counsel the candidate regarding ECV.

    See more
    Applying the Newman-Peacock Prognostic System to a Portuguese Obstetrical Population – A Useful Tool?

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report -
correction
editorial
editorial -
letter
letter -
other -
rapid-communication
research-article
research-article -
review-article
review-article -
Section
Abstracts of Awarded Papers at the 50th Brazilian Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Case Report
Case Report and Treatment
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Editorial
Editorial
Equipments and Methods
Erratum
Febrasgo Position Statement
Letter to the Editor
Methods and Techniques
Nota do Editor
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Original Articles
Previous Note
Relato de Caso
Relatos de Casos
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Teses
Review Article
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Thesis Abstract
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE