| Literature DB >> 27469987 |
Amita A Mahendru1,2, Charlotte S Wilhelm-Benartzi3, Ian B Wilkinson4, Carmel M McEniery4, Sarah Johnson5, Christoph Lees6,7,8.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Understanding the natural length of human pregnancy is central to clinical care. However, variability in the reference methods to assign gestational age (GA) confound our understanding of pregnancy length. Assignation from ultrasound measurement of fetal crown-rump length (CRL) has superseded that based on last menstrual period (LMP). Our aim was to estimate gestational length based on LMP, ultrasound CRL, and implantation that were known, compared to pregnancy duration assigned by day of ovulation.Entities:
Keywords: CRL; Estimated date of delivery; Pregnancy dating; Ultrasound
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27469987 PMCID: PMC5018029 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-016-4153-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet ISSN: 0932-0067 Impact factor: 2.344
Fig. 1Recruitment flowchart
Characteristics of the 71 participants with ongoing pregnancy after 10 weeks
| Characteristics | Participants ( |
|---|---|
| Median (IQR) maternal age, years | 32 (29–35) |
| Ethnicity | |
| White | 65 (91.6) |
| Black | 2 (2.8) |
| Asian | 2 (2.8) |
| Others | 2 (2.8) |
| Parity | |
| Nulliparous | 37 (52) |
| Multiparous | 34 (48) |
Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise
Summary of menstrual cycle data of women who became pregnant
| Days |
| Pregnancies ongoing >10 weeks |
|---|---|---|
| Ovulation day | 59 | 16 (11–39) |
| Menstrual cycle length | 69 | 28 (21–60) |
| Implantation day | 58 | 27 (23–44) |
Values are median (range) unless specified. Ovulation and implantation day relate to the cycle, in which the volunteer achieved pregnancy. Menstrual cycle length is calculated from the study cycles prior to pregnancy. Where women became pregnant in first cycle, no menstrual cycle length data are available
n Number where complete information available
Fig. 2Frequency distributions for gestational age at delivery based on a LMP, b CRL, c ovulation, and d implantation
Fig. 3Distributions showing the absolute differences about the median gestational age at delivery based on a LMP, b CRL, c ovulation, and d implantation
Bland–Altman pairwise comparisons for gestational length based on the four methods of assigning gestational age in ascending order from smallest limit of agreement
| GA comparison | Mean/bias | 95 % limit of agreement |
|---|---|---|
| Ovulation–implantation | 1.17 | (−1.95, 4.29) |
| CRL–implantation | −0.24 | (−3.98, 3.51) |
| Ovulation–CRL | −1.40 | (−5.76, 2.95) |
| Ovulation–LMP | −2.12 | (−10.54, 6.30) |
| LMP–implantation | −0.95 | (−9.50, 7.60) |
| LMP–CRL | 0.71 | (−7.91, 9.34) |
Spearman correlations of pairwise comparisons between all combinations of gestational length based on GA assignation from LMP, ultrasound CRL, ovulation day, and implantation day in descending order from highest R
| Spearman correlation of GA comparisons |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Ovulation–implantation | <2.2e−16 | 0.98 |
| CRL–implantation | <2.2e−16 | 0.96 |
| Ovulation–CRL | <2.2e−16 | 0.96 |
| LMP–implantation | <2.2e−16 | 0.93 |
| Ovulation–LMP | <2.2e−16 | 0.91 |
| LMP–CRL | <2.2e−16 | 0.88 |
Fig. 4Scatter plots and correlation coefficients for a ultrasound scan and ovulation, b ultrasound scan and implantation, c LMP and implantation, d LMP and ovulation, and e ovulation and implantation and f LMP by scan
Fig. 5Figurative representation of the different methods of dating pregnancy and determination of gestational age