Cited by 246Maternal and fetal healthcarePregnancy and preeclampsia studiesMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Clinical utility of sonography in the diagnosis and treatment of placental abruption

Glantz, Chris, Purnell, Leslie·2002·Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of sonography for detection of placental abruption and whether sonographic results correlate with management or outcome. METHODS: We identified 149 consecutive patients who underwent sonography at 24 weeks' gestational age or later for ruling out abruption or vaginal bleeding. Obstetric and neonatal data were obtained from the hospital perinatal database. Sonographic results, pathologic reports, and hospital charts were reviewed. Sonographic sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated, and regression was used to determine independence of associations. RESULTS: Of the 149 patients, 17 (11%) had sonographic evidence of abruption, and 32 (21%) had evidence of abruption at delivery. As the scan-to-delivery interval decreased, the positive predictive value increased and the negative predictive value decreased. Of 55 patients who gave birth within 14 days of sonography, 8 (15%) had scans consistent with abruption, and 29 (53%) had abruption at delivery; the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of sonography were 24%, 96%, 88%, and 53%, respectively. Positive sonographic findings were univariately associated with 2- to 3-fold greater subsequent tocolysis, betamethasone use, duration of hospitalization, follow-up sonograms, preterm delivery, low birth weight, and neonatal intensive care unit admission. All but low birth weight and neonatal intensive care unit admission remained independently significant after adjustment for gestational age (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Sonography is not sensitive for detection of placental abruption, but a positive finding is associated with more aggressive management and worse neonatal outcome.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7863/jum.2002.21.8.837

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glantz, C., & Purnell, L.
Affiliations
University of Rochester Medicine (US)
Venue
Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-08
Volume
21
Issue
8
Pages
837-840
ISSN
  • 0278-4297 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9613
OpenAlex
W2129879632
Cited by
246
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 10
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
placental abruption, prenatal ultrasound, sensitivity and specificity, predictive value, tocolysis, betamethasone, preterm birth, low birth weight, neonatal intensive care admission, vaginal bleeding, perinatal outcomes
MeSH terms
Abruptio Placentae, Female, Hematoma, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Sensitivity and Specificity, Ultrasonography, Prenatal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review