OBJECTIVE: To compare the size of error in the predicted date of delivery by biparietal diameter (BPD) and last menstrual period (LMP) in different clinical models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Predicted dates of delivery were calculated in 14,805 spontaneous deliveries with a reliable date of LMP using two assumptions: average length of pregnancy of 280 and of 282 days. Errors in these calculated dates were tested when used alone or combined, i.e. the LMP-predicted date of delivery was used as first choice unless the discrepancy between gestational age calculated by BPD and LMP exceeded 7, 10 or 14 days. RESULTS: The average discrepancy (error) between predicted date of delivery from BPD and LMP and date of spontaneous delivery was 7.96 and 8.63 days, respectively (p < 0.0001). Adding 282 instead of 280 days to the first day of the LMP reduced the error of the LMP method from 8.63 to 8.41 days, reduced the percentage of classified post-term deliveries from 7.9 to 5.2% and increased the preterm births from 3.96 to 4.48%. No models of combined use of LMP and BPD were superior to the use of BPD alone. CONCLUSION: If both BPD and LMP are available, BPD should be used to predict term. If only LMP is available, term should be calculated as the first date of the LMP plus 282.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the size of error in the predicted date of delivery by biparietal diameter (BPD) and last menstrual period (LMP) in different clinical models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Predicted dates of delivery were calculated in 14,805 spontaneous deliveries with a reliable date of LMP using two assumptions: average length of pregnancy of 280 and of 282 days. Errors in these calculated dates were tested when used alone or combined, i.e. the LMP-predicted date of delivery was used as first choice unless the discrepancy between gestational age calculated by BPD and LMP exceeded 7, 10 or 14 days. RESULTS: The average discrepancy (error) between predicted date of delivery from BPD and LMP and date of spontaneous delivery was 7.96 and 8.63 days, respectively (p < 0.0001). Adding 282 instead of 280 days to the first day of the LMP reduced the error of the LMP method from 8.63 to 8.41 days, reduced the percentage of classified post-term deliveries from 7.9 to 5.2% and increased the preterm births from 3.96 to 4.48%. No models of combined use of LMP and BPD were superior to the use of BPD alone. CONCLUSION: If both BPD and LMP are available, BPD should be used to predict term. If only LMP is available, term should be calculated as the first date of the LMP plus 282.
Authors: Mohammad A Maraci; Mohammad Yaqub; Rachel Craik; Sridevi Beriwal; Alice Self; Peter von Dadelszen; Aris Papageorghiou; J Alison Noble Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2020-01-13
Authors: Anna K Knight; Jeffrey M Craig; Christiane Theda; Marie Bækvad-Hansen; Jonas Bybjerg-Grauholm; Christine S Hansen; Mads V Hollegaard; David M Hougaard; Preben B Mortensen; Shantel M Weinsheimer; Thomas M Werge; Patricia A Brennan; Joseph F Cubells; D Jeffrey Newport; Zachary N Stowe; Jeanie L Y Cheong; Philippa Dalach; Lex W Doyle; Yuk J Loke; Andrea A Baccarelli; Allan C Just; Robert O Wright; Mara M Téllez-Rojo; Katherine Svensson; Letizia Trevisi; Elizabeth M Kennedy; Elisabeth B Binder; Stella Iurato; Darina Czamara; Katri Räikkönen; Jari M T Lahti; Anu-Katriina Pesonen; Eero Kajantie; Pia M Villa; Hannele Laivuori; Esa Hämäläinen; Hea Jin Park; Lynn B Bailey; Sasha E Parets; Varun Kilaru; Ramkumar Menon; Steve Horvath; Nicole R Bush; Kaja Z LeWinn; Frances A Tylavsky; Karen N Conneely; Alicia K Smith Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: A T Papageorghiou; B Kemp; W Stones; E O Ohuma; S H Kennedy; M Purwar; L J Salomon; D G Altman; J A Noble; E Bertino; M G Gravett; R Pang; L Cheikh Ismail; F C Barros; A Lambert; Y A Jaffer; C G Victora; Z A Bhutta; J Villar Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Dominika Modzelewska; Pol Sole-Navais; Anna Sandstrom; Ge Zhang; Louis J Muglia; Christopher Flatley; Staffan Nilsson; Bo Jacobsson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 3.240