OBJECTIVES: Correct assessment of gestational age and fetal growth is essential for optimal obstetric management. The objectives of this study were, first, to develop charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy based on crown-rump length and biparietal diameter and, second, to derive reference curves for normal fetal growth based on biparietal diameter, head circumference, transverse cerebellar diameter, abdominal circumference and femur length from 10 weeks of gestational age onwards. METHODS: A total of 8313 pregnant women were included for analysis in this population-based prospective cohort study. All women had repeated ultrasound assessments to examine fetal growth. RESULTS: Charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy, based on crown-rump length and biparietal diameter, were derived. Internal validation with the actual date of delivery showed that ultrasound imaging provided reliable gestational age estimates. Up to 92% of deliveries took place within 37-42 weeks of gestation if gestational age was derived from ultrasound data, compared with 87% based on a reliable last menstrual period. The earlier the ultrasound assessment the more accurate the prediction of date of delivery. After 24 weeks of gestation a reliable last menstrual period provided better estimates of gestational age. Reference curves for normal fetal growth from 10 weeks of gestational age onwards were derived. CONCLUSIONS: Charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy and reference curves for fetal biometry are presented. The results indicate that, up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, dating by ultrasound examination provides a better prediction of the date of delivery than does last menstrual period. The earlier the ultrasound assessment in pregnancy, preferably between 10 and 12 weeks, the better the estimate of gestational age. Copyright (c) 2008 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
OBJECTIVES: Correct assessment of gestational age and fetal growth is essential for optimal obstetric management. The objectives of this study were, first, to develop charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy based on crown-rump length and biparietal diameter and, second, to derive reference curves for normal fetal growth based on biparietal diameter, head circumference, transverse cerebellar diameter, abdominal circumference and femur length from 10 weeks of gestational age onwards. METHODS: A total of 8313 pregnant women were included for analysis in this population-based prospective cohort study. All women had repeated ultrasound assessments to examine fetal growth. RESULTS: Charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy, based on crown-rump length and biparietal diameter, were derived. Internal validation with the actual date of delivery showed that ultrasound imaging provided reliable gestational age estimates. Up to 92% of deliveries took place within 37-42 weeks of gestation if gestational age was derived from ultrasound data, compared with 87% based on a reliable last menstrual period. The earlier the ultrasound assessment the more accurate the prediction of date of delivery. After 24 weeks of gestation a reliable last menstrual period provided better estimates of gestational age. Reference curves for normal fetal growth from 10 weeks of gestational age onwards were derived. CONCLUSIONS: Charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy and reference curves for fetal biometry are presented. The results indicate that, up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, dating by ultrasound examination provides a better prediction of the date of delivery than does last menstrual period. The earlier the ultrasound assessment in pregnancy, preferably between 10 and 12 weeks, the better the estimate of gestational age. Copyright (c) 2008 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: Jaclyn M Goodrich; Mary E Ingle; Steven E Domino; Marjorie C Treadwell; Dana C Dolinoy; Charles Burant; John D Meeker; Vasantha Padmanabhan Journal: J Dev Orig Health Dis Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 2.401
Authors: Tonya White; Hanan El Marroun; Ilse Nijs; Marcus Schmidt; Aad van der Lugt; Piotr A Wielopolki; Vincent W V Jaddoe; Albert Hofman; Gabriel P Krestin; Henning Tiemeier; Frank C Verhulst Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2013-01-26 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Romy Gaillard; Eric Ap Steegers; Johan C de Jongste; Albert Hofman; Vincent Wv Jaddoe Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Tessa A Mulder; Michiel A van den Dries; Tim I M Korevaar; Kelly K Ferguson; Robin P Peeters; Henning Tiemeier Journal: Environ Int Date: 2019-08-31 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Desana Kocevska; Maria E Verhoeff; Selma Meinderts; Vincent W V Jaddoe; Frank C Verhulst; Sabine J Roza; Maartje P Luijk; Henning Tiemeier Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 3.756
Authors: Marjolein N Kooijman; Hanneke Bakker; Albert J van der Heijden; Albert Hofman; Oscar H Franco; Eric A P Steegers; H Rob Taal; Vincent W V Jaddoe Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Hanneke Bakker; Romy Gaillard; Oscar H Franco; Albert Hofman; Albert J van der Heijden; Eric A P Steegers; H Rob Taal; Vincent W V Jaddoe Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Miranda J J Geelhoed; Eric A P Steegers; Jan W Koper; Elisabeth F C van Rossum; Henriette A Moll; Hein Raat; Henning Tiemeier; Albert Hofman; Vincent W V Jaddoe Journal: BMC Med Genet Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 2.103
Authors: J J Miranda Geelhoed; H Rob Taal; Eric A P Steegers; Lidia R Arends; Maarten Lequin; Henriëtte A Moll; Albert Hofman; Albert J van der Heijden; Vincent W V Jaddoe Journal: Pediatr Nephrol Date: 2009-11-07 Impact factor: 3.714
Authors: Dennis O Mook-Kanamori; Sandra W K de Kort; Cornelia M van Duijn; Andre G Uitterlinden; Albert Hofman; Henriëtte A Moll; Eric A P Steegers; Anita C S Hokken-Koelega; Vincent W V Jaddoe Journal: BMC Med Genet Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 2.103