Literature DB >> 17803622

The research implications of the selection of a gestational age estimation method.

Courtney D Lynch1, Jun Zhang.   

Abstract

There are three primary methods of gestational age estimation: dating based on last menstrual period (LMP), ultrasound-based dating and neonatal estimates. We review the strengths and limitations of each method as well as their implications for research. Dating based on LMP is a simple, low-cost method of estimating gestational age. Limitations associated with the use of menstrual-based dating include reporting problems such as uncertainty regarding the LMP date, possibly due to bleeding not associated with menses, as well as concerns about the incidence of delayed ovulation, which can result in invalid estimates of gestation, even for women with certain LMP dates. Given that most women in the US have at least one ultrasound during pregnancy, it is becoming increasingly common for clinicians to verify menstrual dates using early ultrasound. To calculate gestational age with the use of ultrasound, fetal measurements are compared with a gestational age-specific reference. The primary limitation of this method is the fact that the gestational age estimates of symmetrically large or small fetuses will be biased. Further, given that ultrasound references were developed using pregnancies that were dated according to reliable LMP dates, they are potentially biased in the same direction as dates calculated according to LMP. Neonatal estimates of gestational age have been shown to be the least precise dating method. To highlight the research implications of the choice of a gestational dating method, we used data from the Routine Antenatal Diagnostic Imaging with Ultrasound Study to identify risk factors for post-term delivery. Risk factors for post-term delivery are shown to vary according to the choice of a gestational dating method, suggesting that some findings are an artefact of the choice of a method rather than evidence of causality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17803622     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00865.x

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


  103 in total

1.  Comparison of two measures of gestational age among low income births. The potential impact on health studies, New York, 2005.

Authors:  Victoria Lazariu; Christopher F Davis; Louise-Anne McNutt
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2013-01

2.  Approach to infants born at 22 to 24 weeks' gestation: relationship to outcomes of more-mature infants.

Authors:  P Brian Smith; Namasivayam Ambalavanan; Lei Li; C Michael Cotten; Matthew Laughon; Michele C Walsh; Abhik Das; Edward F Bell; Waldemar A Carlo; Barbara J Stoll; Seetha Shankaran; Abbot R Laptook; Rosemary D Higgins; Ronald N Goldberg
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2012-05-28       Impact factor: 7.124

3.  Postnatal Foot Length to Determine Gestational Age: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Lizelle Van Wyk; Johan Smith
Journal:  J Trop Pediatr       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 1.165

4.  Evaluation of gestational age estimate method on the calculation of preterm birth rates.

Authors:  Eric S Hall; Alonzo T Folger; Elizabeth A Kelly; Beena Devi Kamath-Rayne
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2014-04

5.  Relationship between Epigenetic Maturity and Respiratory Morbidity in Preterm Infants.

Authors:  Anna K Knight; Alicia K Smith; Karen N Conneely; Philippa Dalach; Yuk J Loke; Jeanie L Cheong; Peter G Davis; Jeffrey M Craig; Lex W Doyle; Christiane Theda
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 4.406

6.  Comparison of gestational dating methods and implications for exposure-outcome associations: an example with PM2.5 and preterm birth.

Authors:  Kristen M Rappazzo; Danelle T Lobdell; Lynne C Messer; Charles Poole; Julie L Daniels
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 4.402

7.  Predictors of birth weight and gestational age among adolescents.

Authors:  Emily W Harville; Aubrey Spriggs Madkour; Yiqiong Xie
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Developmental scores at 1 year with increasing gestational age, 37-41 weeks.

Authors:  Olga Rose; Estela Blanco; Suzanna M Martinez; Eastern Kang Sim; Marcela Castillo; Betsy Lozoff; Yvonne E Vaucher; Sheila Gahagan
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 7.124

9.  Induction of labor compared to expectant management in low-risk women and associated perinatal outcomes.

Authors:  Yvonne W Cheng; Anjali J Kaimal; Jonathan M Snowden; James M Nicholson; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-09-22       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  Association between local traffic-generated air pollution and preeclampsia and preterm delivery in the south coast air basin of California.

Authors:  Jun Wu; Cizao Ren; Ralph J Delfino; Judith Chung; Michelle Wilhelm; Beate Ritz
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2009-06-23       Impact factor: 9.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.