Copyright
©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Clin Cases. Jun 16, 2024; 12(17): 3053-3060
Published online Jun 16, 2024. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i17.3053
Published online Jun 16, 2024. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i17.3053
Table 1 Comparison of the demographic data between the two groups, n (%)
Adverse pregnancy group (n = 57) | Normal pregnancy group (n = 96) | P value | |
Age | 29.4 (4.2) | 28.9 (3.5) | 0.424 |
Parity | 0.390 | ||
Primipara | 31 (53.8) | 58 (60.4) | |
Multipara | 26 (46.2) | 38 (39.6) | |
Vaginal bleeding | 0.028 | ||
Yes | 24 (42.1) | 17 (17.7) | |
No | 33 (57.9) | 79 (82.3) | |
Abdominal pain | 0.891 | ||
Yes | 33 (57.9) | 58 (60.4) | |
No | 24 (42.1) | 38 (39.6) | |
Hysteromyoma | 1.000 | ||
Yes | 3 (5.3) | 4 (4.2) | |
No | 54 (94.7) | 92 (95.8) | |
Diabetes before pregnancy | 0.713 | ||
Yes | 2 (3.5) | 4 (4.2) | |
No | 55 (96.5) | 92 (95.8) | |
Chronic hypertension | 1.000 | ||
Yes | 2 (3.5) | 3 (3.1) | |
No | 55 (96.5) | 93 (96.9) |
Table 2 Comparison of ultrasound parameters between patients in the adverse and normal pregnancy groups
Adverse pregnancy group (n = 57) | Normal pregnancy group (n = 96) | P value | |
SCH | |||
Cs (cm) | 4.6 (3.1, 6) | 3.2 (2.1, 4.2) | < 0.001 |
Ss (cm2) | 2.1 (1.5, 3) | 1.3 (0.8, 1.9) | < 0.001 |
3DVs (cm3) | 2.9 (2.2, 3.5) | 1.5 (0.6, 2.4) | < 0.001 |
GS | |||
Cg (cm) | 9 (7.2, 10.5) | 9.2 (7.9, 11.6) | 0.214 |
Sg (cm2) | 6.6 (3.6, 9.9) | 7.1 (4.4, 10.7) | 0.411 |
3DVg (cm3) | 8.4 (5.3, 15.6) | 12.6 (6.4, 21.3) | 0.057 |
SCH/GS | |||
Cs/Cg | 0.5 (0.4, 0.6) | 0.3 (0.2, 0.4) | < 0.001 |
Ss/Sg | 0.3 (0.2, 0.5) | 0.2 (0.1, 0.3) | < 0.001 |
3DVs/3DVg | 0.3 (0.2, 0.5) | 0.1 (0.1, 0.2) | < 0.001 |
Table 3 Differential diagnostic efficacy of different subchorionic hematoma sizes for adverse versus normal pregnancy
ROC | Cut-off | Sensibility | Specificity | Positive predictive value | Negative predictive value | |
Cs (cm) | 0.671 (0.579, 0.763) | 4.340 | 0.561 | 0.760 | 0.582 | 0.745 |
Ss (cm2) | 0.697 (0.611, 0.784) | 1.350 | 0.825 | 0.510 | 0.500 | 0.830 |
3DVs (cm3) | 0.743 (0.661, 0.826) | 2.180 | 0.807 | 0.719 | 0.630 | 0.863 |
Cs/Cg | 0.262 (0.180, 0.344) | 0.400 | 0.737 | 0.677 | 0.575 | 0.713 |
Ss/Sg | 0.710 (0.624, 0.797) | 0.360 | 0.474 | 0.885 | 0.711 | 0.739 |
3DVs/3DVg | 0.767 (0.691, 0.844) | 0.220 | 0.702 | 0.750 | 0.625 | 0.809 |
Table 4 3DVs/3DVg and progesterone for early adverse pregnancy
ROC | Cut-off | Sensibility | Specificity | Positive predictive value | Negative predictive value | |
3DVs/3DVg | 0.767 (0.691, 0.844) | 0.220 | 0.702 | 0.750 | 0.625 | 0.809 |
Progesterone | 0.649 (0.557, 0.741) | 18.2 | 0.677 | 0.625 | 0.756 | 0.530 |
3DVs/3DVg combined progesterone | 0.824 (0.756, 0.891) | 0.664 | 0.770 | 0.821 | 0.881 | 0.676 |
- Citation: Shen LL, Shi J, Ding CW, Dai GL, Ma Q. Diagnostic efficacy of virtual organ computer-assisted analysis in measuring the volume ratio of subchorionic hematoma with serum progesterone. World J Clin Cases 2024; 12(17): 3053-3060
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v12/i17/3053.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v12.i17.3053