BACKGROUND: Fetal crown-rump length (CRL) measurement by ultrasound in the first trimester is the standard method for pregnancy dating; however, a multitude of CRL equations to estimate gestational age (GA) are reported in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological quality used in studies reporting CRL equations to estimate GA using a set of predefined criteria. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases, from 1948 to 31 January 2011, and secondary reference sources, were performed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Observational ultrasound studies, where the primary aim was to create equations for GA estimation using a CRL measurement. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Included studies were scored against predefined independently agreed methodological criteria: an overall quality score was calculated for each study. MAIN RESULTS: The searches yielded 1142 citations. Two reviewers screened the papers and independently assessed the full-text versions of 29 eligible studies. The highest potential for bias was noted in inclusion and exclusion criteria, and in maternal demographic characteristics. No studies had systematic ultrasound quality-control measures. The four studies with the highest scores (lowest risk of bias) satisfied 18 or more of the 29 criteria; these showed lower variation in GA estimation than the remaining, lower-scoring studies. This was particularly evident at the extremes of GA. AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: Considerable methodological heterogeneity and limitations exist in studies reporting CRL equations for estimating GA, and these result in a wide range of estimated GAs for any given CRL; however, when studies with the highest methodological quality are used, this range is reduced.
BACKGROUND: Fetal crown-rump length (CRL) measurement by ultrasound in the first trimester is the standard method for pregnancy dating; however, a multitude of CRL equations to estimate gestational age (GA) are reported in the literature. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological quality used in studies reporting CRL equations to estimate GA using a set of predefined criteria. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases, from 1948 to 31 January 2011, and secondary reference sources, were performed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Observational ultrasound studies, where the primary aim was to create equations for GA estimation using a CRL measurement. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Included studies were scored against predefined independently agreed methodological criteria: an overall quality score was calculated for each study. MAIN RESULTS: The searches yielded 1142 citations. Two reviewers screened the papers and independently assessed the full-text versions of 29 eligible studies. The highest potential for bias was noted in inclusion and exclusion criteria, and in maternal demographic characteristics. No studies had systematic ultrasound quality-control measures. The four studies with the highest scores (lowest risk of bias) satisfied 18 or more of the 29 criteria; these showed lower variation in GA estimation than the remaining, lower-scoring studies. This was particularly evident at the extremes of GA. AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: Considerable methodological heterogeneity and limitations exist in studies reporting CRL equations for estimating GA, and these result in a wide range of estimated GAs for any given CRL; however, when studies with the highest methodological quality are used, this range is reduced.
Authors: Corah O Ohadike; Leila Cheikh-Ismail; Eric O Ohuma; Francesca Giuliani; Deborah Bishop; Gilberto Kac; Fabien Puglia; Michael Maia-Schlüssel; Stephen H Kennedy; José Villar; Jane E Hirst Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 8.701
Authors: Mohammad A Maraci; Mohammad Yaqub; Rachel Craik; Sridevi Beriwal; Alice Self; Peter von Dadelszen; Aris Papageorghiou; J Alison Noble Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2020-01-13
Authors: Shahin Lockman; Sean S Brummel; Lauren Ziemba; Lynda Stranix-Chibanda; Katie McCarthy; Anne Coletti; Patrick Jean-Philippe; Ben Johnston; Chelsea Krotje; Lee Fairlie; Risa M Hoffman; Paul E Sax; Sikhulile Moyo; Nahida Chakhtoura; Jeffrey Sa Stringer; Gaerolwe Masheto; Violet Korutaro; Haseena Cassim; Blandina T Mmbaga; Esau João; Sherika Hanley; Lynette Purdue; Lewis B Holmes; Jeremiah D Momper; Roger L Shapiro; Navdeep K Thoofer; James F Rooney; Lisa M Frenkel; K Rivet Amico; Lameck Chinula; Judith Currier Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-04-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kerryn A Moore; Julie A Simpson; Kyla H Thomas; Marcus J Rijken; Lisa J White; Saw Lu Moo Dwell; Moo Kho Paw; Jacher Wiladphaingern; Sasithon Pukrittayakamee; François Nosten; Freya J I Fowkes; Rose McGready Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: A T Papageorghiou; S H Kennedy; L J Salomon; E O Ohuma; L Cheikh Ismail; F C Barros; A Lambert; M Carvalho; Y A Jaffer; E Bertino; M G Gravett; D G Altman; M Purwar; J A Noble; R Pang; C G Victora; Z A Bhutta; J Villar Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-11-02 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Susan Campbell Westerway; Aris T Papageorghiou; Jane Hirst; Fabricio da Silva Costa; Jon Hyett; Susan P Walker Journal: Australas J Ultrasound Med Date: 2015-12-31
Authors: R Napolitano; V Donadono; E O Ohuma; C L Knight; S Z Wanyonyi; B Kemp; T Norris; A T Papageorghiou Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 7.299