Literature DB >> 16084037

The biologic error in gestational length related to the use of the first day of last menstrual period as a proxy for the start of pregnancy.

Jakob Nakling1, Harald Buhaug, Bjorn Backe.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In a large unselected population of normal spontaneous pregnancies, to estimate the biologic variation of the interval from the first day of the last menstrual period to start of pregnancy, and the biologic variation of gestational length to delivery; and to estimate the random error of routine ultrasound assessment of gestational age in mid-second trimester. STUDY
DESIGN: Cohort study of 11,238 singleton pregnancies, with spontaneous onset of labour and reliable last menstrual period. The day of delivery was predicted with two independent methods: According to the rule of Nägele and based on ultrasound examination in gestational weeks 17-19. For both methods, the mean difference between observed and predicted day of delivery was calculated. The variances of the differences were combined to estimate the variances of the two partitions of pregnancy.
RESULTS: The biologic variation of the time from last menstrual period to pregnancy start was estimated to 7.0 days (standard deviation), and the standard deviation of the time to spontaneous delivery was estimated to 12.4 days. The estimate of the standard deviation of the random error of ultrasound assessed foetal age was 5.2 days.
CONCLUSION: Even when the last menstrual period is reliable, the biologic variation of the time from last menstrual period to the real start of pregnancy is substantial, and must be taken into account. Reliable information about the first day of the last menstrual period is not equivalent with reliable information about the start of pregnancy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16084037     DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2005.06.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Early Hum Dev        ISSN: 0378-3782            Impact factor:   2.079


  5 in total

1.  Quality of ultrasound biometry obtained by local health workers in a refugee camp on the Thai-Burmese border.

Authors:  M J Rijken; E J H Mulder; A T Papageorghiou; S Thiptharakun; N Wah; T K Paw; S L M Dwell; G H A Visser; F H Nosten; R McGready
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 7.299

2.  Estimation of gestational age from fundal height: a solution for resource-poor settings.

Authors:  Lisa J White; Sue J Lee; Kasia Stepniewska; Julie A Simpson; Saw Lu Mu Dwell; Ratree Arunjerdja; Pratap Singhasivanon; Nicholas J White; Francois Nosten; Rose McGready
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 4.118

3.  Postnatal gestational age estimation via newborn screening analysis: application and potential.

Authors:  Lindsay A Wilson; Malia Sq Murphy; Robin Ducharme; Kathryn Denize; Nafisa M Jadavji; Beth Potter; Julian Little; Pranesh Chakraborty; Steven Hawken; Kumanan Wilson
Journal:  Expert Rev Proteomics       Date:  2019-08-17       Impact factor: 3.940

4.  Comparison of first trimester dating methods for gestational age estimation and their implication on preterm birth classification in a North Indian cohort.

Authors:  Ramya Vijayram; Nikhita Damaraju; Ashley Xavier; Bapu Koundinya Desiraju; Ramachandran Thiruvengadam; Sumit Misra; Shilpa Chopra; Ashok Khurana; Nitya Wadhwa; Raghunathan Rengaswamy; Himanshu Sinha; Shinjini Bhatnagar
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Clinical implications of first-trimester ultrasound dating in singleton pregnancies obtained through in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Agnese Maria Chiara Rapisarda; Edgardo Somigliana; Chiara Dallagiovanna; Marco Reschini; Maria Grazia Pezone; Veronica Accurti; Giuditta Ferrara; Nicola Persico; Simona Boito
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 3.752

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.