Risk Factors: Labor Protraction
Nulliparous Group
Nulliparous Group
Nulliparous Group
Nulliparous Group
Parous Group
Parous Group
Parous Group
Parous Group
Table-3: Binary Logistic Regression Analysis in terms of Labor Protraction, Labor Arrest, Ceserean Delivery and Shoulder Dystocia between Nulliparous and Parous Groups Risk Factors: Labor Protraction Nulliparous Group Nulliparous Group Nulliparous Group Nulliparous Group Parous Group Parous Group Parous Group Parous Group Wald O.R. %95 C.I. p Wald O.R. %95 C.I. p Anterior Abdominal Wall Adipose Thickness 19,987 3,345 1,970-5,680 <0,001 28,677 8,897 3,998-19,801 <0,001 Femur Adipose Thickness 3,939 1,777 1,007-3,136 0,047 11,717 3,349 1,676-6,691 0,001 Humerus Adipose Thickness 10,250 2,978 1,527-5,808 0,001 1,933 1,519 0,843-2,739 0,164 Total Adipose Tissue Thickness 43,413 2,490 1,898-3,266 <0,001 41,035 2,933 2,110-4,076 <0,001 OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; Wald: test statistic value. Since the dependent variable consists of 2 groups, binary logistic regression used. Enter method used in analysis. Hosmer and Lemeshow test p values: 0.859, 0.880 (for nulliparous group and parous group, respectively) and the models had good data compatibility. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; Wald: test statistic value. Since the dependent variable consists of 2 groups, binary logistic regression used. Enter method used in analysis. Hosmer and Lemeshow test p values: 0.859, 0.880 (for nulliparous group and parous group, respectively) and the models had good data compatibility. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; Wald: test statistic value. Since the dependent variable consists of 2 groups, binary logistic regression used. Enter method used in analysis. Hosmer and Lemeshow test p values: 0.859, 0.880 (for nulliparous group and parous group, respectively) and the models had good data compatibility. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; Wald: test statistic value. Since the dependent variable consists of 2 groups, binary logistic regression used. Enter method used in analysis. Hosmer and Lemeshow test p values: 0.859, 0.880 (for nulliparous group and parous group, respectively) and the models had good data compatibility. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; Wald: test statistic value. Since the dependent variable consists of 2 groups, binary logistic regression used. Enter method used in analysis. Hosmer and Lemeshow test p values: 0.859, 0.880 (for nulliparous group and parous group, respectively) and the models had good data compatibility. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; Wald: test statistic value. Since the dependent variable consists of 2 groups, binary logistic regression used. Enter method used in analysis. Hosmer and Lemeshow test p values: 0.859, 0.880 (for nulliparous group and parous group, respectively) and the models had good data compatibility. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; Wald: test statistic value. Since the dependent variable consists of 2 groups, binary logistic regression used. Enter method used in analysis. Hosmer and Lemeshow test p values: 0.859, 0.880 (for nulliparous group and parous group, respectively) and the models had good data compatibility. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; Wald: test statistic value. Since the dependent variable consists of 2 groups, binary logistic regression used. Enter method used in analysis. Hosmer and Lemeshow test p values: 0.859, 0.880 (for nulliparous group and parous group, respectively) and the models had good data compatibility. OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; Wald: test statistic value. Since the dependent variable consists of 2 groups, binary logistic regression used. Enter method used in analysis. Hosmer and Lemeshow test p values: 0.859, 0.880 (for nulliparous group and parous group, respectively) and the models had good data compatibility.