Literature DB >> 23928480

Maternal and fetal factors which affect fetometry: use of in vitro fertilization and birth register data.

Bengt Källén1, Orvar Finnström, Karl-Gösta Nygren, Petra Otterblad Olausson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fetometry dating of gestational age is the gold standard in most developed countries but may have some inborn errors. Dating pregnancies after in vitro fertilization can be used for the evaluation of fetometric studies and for studies of variables which may affect them.
METHODS: We compared the actual gestational age of 9543 singleton and 869 twin pregnancies with estimates based on second-trimester fetometry. Mean gestational age, percentage of births classified as preterm, and skewness of the distribution of differences between actual and estimated gestational age were studied. Subanalyses were made of data on singletons for males and females, for infants born to overweight or obese women or to smoking women, for infants judged to be small or large for gestational age, and on twins.
RESULTS: In the majority of cases, good agreement was found between actual and estimated gestational age but in singletons there was an excess of positive differences resulting in a moderate over-estimate of the rate of preterm births (8%), more marked for females (11%) than for males (6%) and increased for infants born to overweight (7%) or obese (16%) mothers. Singleton infants born small for gestational age also showed an excess of positive differences (3%). These differences were less marked for twins.
CONCLUSIONS: In most IVF pregnancies, routine fetometry correctly predicts gestational age but deviations exist which indicate that ultrasound underestimates the age of fetuses that will be born small for gestational age and when the woman is obese. The differences between actual age and estimates based on fetometry seem to be smaller than those between estimates based on last menstrual period and fetometry. Crown
Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BMI; BPD; CRL; Fetometry; Gestational age dating; ICSI; IVF; In vitro fertilization; LGA; LMP; MBR; Maternal obesity; Medical Birth Register; SEM; SGA; Small for gestational age; Smoking; biparietal diameter; body mass index; crown-rump length; in vitro fertilization; intracytoplasmic sperm injection; large for gestational age; last menstrual period; small for gestational age; standard error of the mean

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23928480     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.07.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol        ISSN: 0301-2115            Impact factor:   2.435


  6 in total

1.  Antepartum Care of Women Who Are Obese During Pregnancy: Systematic Review of the Current Evidence.

Authors:  Nicole S Carlson; Sharon Lynn Leslie; Alexis Dunn
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 2.388

2.  Body size and risk of spontaneous abortion among danish pregnancy planners.

Authors:  Kristen A Hahn; Elizabeth E Hatch; Kenneth J Rothman; Ellen M Mikkelsen; Susan B Brogly; Henrik T Sørensen; Anders H Riis; Lauren A Wise
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.980

3.  Effects of ultrasound pregnancy dating on neonatal morbidity in late preterm and early term male infants: a register-based cohort study.

Authors:  Merit Kullinger; Bengt Haglund; Helle Kieler; Alkistis Skalkidou
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 3.007

4.  Discordant dating of pregnancy by LMP and ultrasound and its implications in perinatal statistics.

Authors:  Lalit K Sharma; Jyoti Bindal; Vishal A Shrivastava; Mansi Sharma; Rijo M Choorakuttil; Praveen K Nirmalan
Journal:  Indian J Radiol Imaging       Date:  2020-03-30

5.  Rates and risk factors for preterm birth and low birthweight in the global network sites in six low- and low middle-income countries.

Authors:  Yamini V Pusdekar; Archana B Patel; Kunal G Kurhe; Savita R Bhargav; Vanessa Thorsten; Ana Garces; Robert L Goldenberg; Shivaprasad S Goudar; Sarah Saleem; Fabian Esamai; Elwyn Chomba; Melissa Bauserman; Carl L Bose; Edward A Liechty; Nancy F Krebs; Richard J Derman; Waldemar A Carlo; Marion Koso-Thomas; Tracy L Nolen; Elizabeth M McClure; Patricia L Hibberd
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 3.223

6.  Maternal and fetal characteristics affect discrepancies between pregnancy-dating methods: a population-based cross-sectional register study.

Authors:  Merit Kullinger; Jan Wesström; Helle Kieler; Alkistis Skalkidou
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2016-11-13       Impact factor: 3.636

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.