Literature DB >> 2643067

Conceptional age, menstrual age, and ultrasound age: a second-trimester comparison of pregnancies of known conception date with pregnancies dated from the last menstrual period.

I K Rossavik1, J I Fishburne.   

Abstract

Ultrasound dating-curve analysis was performed for the biparietal diameter, mean head diameter, and mean trunk diameter in individual singletons, twins, and triplets from in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies and pregnancies with ultrasonographic determination of ovulation. Linear growth was found for all parameters prior to 28 weeks' conceptional age. No differences were observed among singletons, twins, or triplets. Using linear equations, no significant difference was found in systematic errors between pregnancies with a known date of conception and pregnancies dated from the last menstrual period (LMP). Pregnancies with reliable LMPs had only a slight and nonsignificant increase in random errors when compared with pregnancies from IVF. Current polynomial dating equations produced considerable systematic and random errors as well as errors related to fetal growth. Acceptable results were obtained with a new linear equation based on two examinations. We conclude that gestational age based on good menstrual records supported by a pelvic examination in the first trimester may be more reliable than even the best ultrasound method for dating.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2643067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  9 in total

1.  Methodological challenges in the study of fetal growth.

Authors:  T D Abell
Journal:  Hum Nat       Date:  1994-03

2.  An evolutionary perspective on the patterning of maternal investment in pregnancy.

Authors:  N Peacock
Journal:  Hum Nat       Date:  1991-12

3.  Estimated date of delivery from last menstrual period and ultrasound scan: which is more accurate?

Authors:  S Rowlands; P Royston
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Racial differences in the patterns of singleton preterm delivery in the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey.

Authors:  C Blackmore-Prince; B Kieke; K A Kugaraj; C Ferré; L D Elam-Evans; C J Krulewitch; J A Gaudino; M Overpeck
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  1999-12

5.  Continuous variable transformation in anesthesia: useful clinical shorthand, but threat to research.

Authors:  Olubukola O Nafiu; Brenda W Gillespie; Alex Tsodikov
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 7.892

Review 6.  Diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction.

Authors:  Jacqueline E A K Bamfo; Anthony O Odibo
Journal:  J Pregnancy       Date:  2011-04-13

7.  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

8.  Estimating gestational age at birth from fundal height and additional anthropometrics: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  S J Pugh; A M Ortega-Villa; W Grobman; R B Newman; J Owen; D A Wing; P S Albert; K L Grantz
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2018-04-15       Impact factor: 6.531

9.  Gestational age assessment in malaria pregnancy cohorts: a prospective ultrasound demonstration project in Malawi.

Authors:  Blair J Wylie; Linda Kalilani-Phiri; Mwayi Madanitsa; Gladys Membe; Osward Nyirenda; Patricia Mawindo; Redson Kuyenda; Albert Malenga; Abbey Masonbrink; Bonus Makanani; Phillip Thesing; Miriam K Laufer
Journal:  Malar J       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 2.979

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.