Literature DB >> 16149101

Ultrasound dating at 12-14 weeks of gestation. A prospective cross-validation of established dating formulae in in-vitro fertilized pregnancies.

P Sladkevicius1, S Saltvedt, H Almström, M Kublickas, C Grunewald, L Valentin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of established ultrasound dating formulae when used at 12-14 weeks of gestation.
METHODS: One-hundred and sixty-seven singleton pregnancies conceived after in-vitro fertilization (IVF) underwent a dating scan at 12-14 weeks of gestation. Gestational age at the dating scan was calculated by adding 14 days to the number of days between the date of oocyte retrieval and the date of the ultrasound scan. Gestational age according to oocyte retrieval was regarded as the true gestational age. True gestational age was compared to gestational age calculated on the basis of 21 dating formulae based on fetal crown-rump length (CRL) measurements and to three dating formulae based on fetal biparietal diameter (BPD) measurements. In a previous study the three BPD formulae tested here had been shown to be superior to four other BPD formulae when used at 12-14 weeks of gestation. The mean of the differences between estimated and true gestational age and their standard deviation (SD) were calculated for each formula. The SD of the differences was assumed to reflect random measurement error. Systematic measurement error was assumed to exist if zero lay outside the mean difference+/-2SE (SE: standard error of the mean).
RESULTS: The three best CRL formulae were associated with mean (non-systematic) measurement errors of -0.0, -0.1 and -0.3 days, and the SD of the measurement errors of these formulae varied from 2.37 to 2.45. All but two of the remaining CRL formulae were associated with systematic over- or under-estimation of gestational age, and the SDs of their measurement error varied between 2.25 and 4.86 days. Dating formulae using BPD systematically underestimated gestational age by -0.4 to -0.7 days, and the SDs of their measurement errors varied from 1.86 to 2.09.
CONCLUSIONS: We have identified three BPD formulae that are suitable for dating at 12-14 weeks of gestation. They are superior to all 21 CRL formulae tested here, because their random measurement errors were much smaller than those of the three best CRL formulae. The small systematic negative measurement errors associated with the BPD formulae are likely to be clinically unimportant. Copyright (c) 2005 ISUOG.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16149101     DOI: 10.1002/uog.1993

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  12 in total

1.  Parental occupation and risk of small-for-gestational-age births: a nationwide epidemiological study in Sweden.

Authors:  X Li; J Sundquist; K Sundquist
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-02-03       Impact factor: 6.918

2.  Effects of prematurity on the development of contrast sensitivity: testing the visual experience hypothesis.

Authors:  Rain G Bosworth; Karen R Dobkins
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2013-02-24       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Effects of gestational length, gender, postnatal age, and birth order on visual contrast sensitivity in infants.

Authors:  Karen R Dobkins; Rain G Bosworth; Joseph P McCleery
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  An informative probability model enhancing real time echobiometry to improve fetal weight estimation accuracy.

Authors:  G Cevenini; F M Severi; C Bocchi; F Petraglia; P Barbini
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  Estimation of gestational age in early pregnancy from crown-rump length when gestational age range is truncated: the case study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.

Authors:  Eric O Ohuma; Aris T Papageorghiou; Jose Villar; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Gestational dating by metabolic profile at birth: a California cohort study.

Authors:  Laura L Jelliffe-Pawlowski; Mary E Norton; Rebecca J Baer; Nicole Santos; George W Rutherford
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-12-11       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  How old are you? Newborn gestational age discriminates neonatal resuscitation practices in the Italian debate.

Authors:  Emanuela Turillazzi; Vittorio Fineschi
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2009-11-12       Impact factor: 2.652

8.  Using AMANHI-ACT cohorts for external validation of Iowa new-born metabolic profiles based models for postnatal gestational age estimation.

Authors:  Sunil Sazawal; Kelli K Ryckman; Harshita Mittal; Rasheda Khanam; Imran Nisar; Elizabeth Jasper; Sayedur Rahman; Usma Mehmood; Sayan Das; Bruce Bedell; Nabidul Haque Chowdhury; Amina Barkat; Arup Dutta; Saikat Deb; Salahuddin Ahmed; Farah Khalid; Rubhana Raqib; Muhammad Ilyas; Ambreen Nizar; Said Mohammed Ali; Alexander Manu; Sachiyo Yoshida; Abdullah H Baqui; Fyezah Jehan; Usha Dhingra; Rajiv Bahl
Journal:  J Glob Health       Date:  2021-07-17       Impact factor: 4.413

9.  Ultrasound Reference Chart Based on IVF Dates to Estimate Gestational Age at 6-9 weeks' Gestation.

Authors:  Pavitra Delpachitra; Kirsten Palmer; Joseph Onwude; Simon Meagher; Luk Rombauts; Karen Waalwyk; Michael Bethune; Stephen Tong
Journal:  ISRN Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-07-22

10.  Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study.

Authors:  Merit Kullinger; Michaela Granfors; Helle Kieler; Alkistis Skalkidou
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.