Literature DB >> 10949219

Assessing number-specific error in the recall of onset of last menstrual period.

D K Waller1, W D Spears, Y Gu, G C Cunningham.   

Abstract

The goal of this investigation was to determine whether women who did not report preferred numbers for their last menstrual period (LMP) may be a group of women who are particularly careful in keeping track of their menstrual cycles and therefore have more accurate LMP dating--based on a comparison with ultrasound examinations. We also sought to estimate the frequency with which preferred numbers are reported in different sources of data and for different subgroups of women. First, we examined the 1987 California birth certificates in which LMP was collected at the time of birth (n = 504853). We also examined the records of 43880 women participating in the California Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) Screening Program between 1986 and 1987, for whom gestational ages based on both early ultrasound examination and LMP were collected before 20 weeks of gestation. In the 1987 California birth certificates, seven numbers--1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 28--were recorded more frequently than expected. An estimated 12.9% of these records had preferred numbers. The most frequently recorded number was 15, occurring 2.5 times more often than expected (P < 0.01). In the data of the AFP Screening Program, the same seven numbers were preferred, and approximately 7.9% of records were affected by number preference. Comparisons with measurements of gestational age based on ultrasound demonstrated that LMP-based gestational ages in which non-preferred numbers are reported for the LMP are slightly more accurate than those in which preferred numbers are reported (P < 0.01). In most cases, number preference appears to introduce small errors into measurements of gestational age, probably as a result of rounding. Thus, the effect of number preference may be primarily of interest to research studies in which small errors in the measurement of gestational age will have a significant impact on findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10949219     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3016.2000.00275.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol        ISSN: 0269-5022            Impact factor:   3.980


  11 in total

1.  Are anesthesia start and end times randomly distributed? The influence of electronic records.

Authors:  Litisha G Deal; Michael E Nyland; Nikolaus Gravenstein; Patrick Tighe
Journal:  J Clin Anesth       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 9.452

2.  Strips of Hope: Accuracy of Home Pregnancy Tests and New Developments.

Authors:  C Gnoth; S Johnson
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.915

3.  Methods of gestational age assessment influence the observed association between antiretroviral therapy exposure, preterm delivery, and small-for-gestational age infants: a prospective study in Cape Town, South Africa.

Authors:  Thokozile Rosemary Malaba; Marie-Louise Newell; Hlengiwe Madlala; Alexander Perez; Clive Gray; Landon Myer
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2018-08-29       Impact factor: 3.797

4.  Association between Intimate Partner Violence during Pregnancy and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Vietnam: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Thanh Nguyen Hoang; Toan Ngo Van; Tine Gammeltoft; Dan W Meyrowitsch; Hanh Nguyen Thi Thuy; Vibeke Rasch
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Study protocol of a 4- parallel arm, superiority, community based cluster randomized controlled trial comparing paper and e-platform based interventions to improve accuracy of recall of last menstrual period (LMP) dates in rural Bangladesh.

Authors:  Shumona Sharmin Salam; Nazia Binte Ali; Ahmed Ehsanur Rahman; Tazeen Tahsina; Md Irteja Islam; Afrin Iqbal; Dewan Md Emdadul Hoque; Samir Kumar Saha; Shams El Arifeen
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  The onset of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Roger Gadsby; Diana Ivanova; Emma Trevelyan; Jane L Hutton; Sarah Johnson
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  Antiretroviral therapy initiation before, during, or after pregnancy in HIV-1-infected women: maternal virologic, immunologic, and clinical response.

Authors:  Vlada V Melekhin; Bryan E Shepherd; Samuel E Stinnette; Peter F Rebeiro; Gema Barkanic; Stephen P Raffanti; Timothy R Sterling
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-09-09       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Estimating gestational age at birth from fundal height and additional anthropometrics: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  S J Pugh; A M Ortega-Villa; W Grobman; R B Newman; J Owen; D A Wing; P S Albert; K L Grantz
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2018-04-15       Impact factor: 6.531

9.  Determining gestational age for public health care users in Brazil: comparison of methods and algorithm creation.

Authors:  Ana Paula Esteves Pereira; Marcos Augusto Bastos Dias; Maria Helena Bastos; Silvana Granado Nogueira da Gama; Maria do Carmo Leal
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2013-02-13

10.  Gestational length assignment based on last menstrual period, first trimester crown-rump length, ovulation, and implantation timing.

Authors:  Amita A Mahendru; Charlotte S Wilhelm-Benartzi; Ian B Wilkinson; Carmel M McEniery; Sarah Johnson; Christoph Lees
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 2.344

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.