Literature DB >> 27555359

Adverse Infant Outcomes Associated with Discordant Gestational Age Estimates.

Nils-Halvdan Morken1,2, Rolv Skjaerven1, Jennifer L Richards3, Michael R Kramer3, Sven Cnattingius4, Stefan Johansson4,5, Mika Gissler6, Siobhan M Dolan7, Jennifer Zeitlin8, Michael S Kramer9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gestational age estimation by last menstrual period (LMP) vs. ultrasound (or best obstetric estimate in the US) may result in discrepant classification of preterm vs. term birth. We investigated whether such discrepancies are associated with adverse infant outcomes.
METHODS: We studied singleton livebirths in the Medical Birth Registries of Norway, Sweden and Finland and US live birth certificates from 1999 to the most recent year available. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) by discordant and concordant gestational age estimation for infant, neonatal and post-neonatal mortality, Apgar score <4 and <7 at 5 min, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission were estimated using generalised linear models, adjusting for maternal age, education, parity, year of birth, and infant sex. Results were presented stratified by country.
RESULTS: Compared to infants born at term by both methods, infants born preterm by ultrasound/best obstetric estimate but term by LMP had higher infant mortality risks (range of adjusted RRs 3.9 to 7.2) and modestly higher risks were obtained among infants born preterm by LMP but term by ultrasound/best obstetric estimate (range of adjusted RRs 1.6 to 1.9). Risk estimates for the other outcomes showed the same pattern. These findings were consistent across all four countries.
CONCLUSIONS: Infants classified as preterm by ultrasound/best estimate, but term by LMP have consistently higher risks of adverse outcomes than those classified as preterm by LMP but term by ultrasound/best estimate. Compared with ultrasound/best estimate, use of LMP overestimates the proportion of births that are preterm.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gestational age estimation; best obstetric estimate; infant outcome; last menstrual period; ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27555359      PMCID: PMC5576505          DOI: 10.1111/ppe.12311

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol        ISSN: 0269-5022            Impact factor:   3.980


  25 in total

1.  Ultrasound pregnancy dating leads to biased perinatal morbidity and neonatal mortality among post-term-born girls.

Authors:  Alkistis Skalkidou; Helle Kieler; Olof Stephansson; Nathalie Roos; Sven Cnattingius; Bengt Haglund
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.822

2.  Determinants and consequences of discrepancies in menstrual and ultrasonographic gestational age estimates.

Authors:  Isabelle Morin; Lucie Morin; Xun Zhang; Robert W Platt; Béatrice Blondel; Gérard Bréart; Robert Usher; Michael S Kramer
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 6.531

3.  Assessing the quality of last menstrual period date on California birth records.

Authors:  Michelle Pearl; Megan L Wier; Martin Kharrazi
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.980

Review 4.  Gestational age estimation on United States livebirth certificates: a historical overview.

Authors:  Megan L Wier; Michelle Pearl; Martin Kharrazi
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.980

5.  A comparison of the ability of a sonographically measured biparietal diameter and the last menstrual period to predict the spontaneous onset of labor.

Authors:  U Waldenström; O Axelsson; S Nilsson
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 6.  Preterm labor: one syndrome, many causes.

Authors:  Roberto Romero; Sudhansu K Dey; Susan J Fisher
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Bias in studies of preterm and postterm delivery due to ultrasound assessment of gestational age.

Authors:  T B Henriksen; A J Wilcox; M Hedegaard; N J Secher
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 4.822

8.  A discrepancy between gestational age estimated by last menstrual period and biparietal diameter may indicate an increased risk of fetal death and adverse pregnancy outcome.

Authors:  T Nguyen; T Larsen; G Engholm; H Møller
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 6.531

9.  Variation between last-menstrual-period and clinical estimates of gestational age in vital records.

Authors:  Cheng Qin; Jason Hsia; Cynthia J Berg
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-01-07       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Reference population for international comparisons and time trend surveillance of preterm delivery proportions in three countries.

Authors:  Nils-Halvdan Morken; Ida Vogel; Karin Kallen; Rolv Skjaerven; Jens Langhoff-Roos; Ulrik Schiøler Kesmodel; Bo Jacobsson
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2008-09-25       Impact factor: 2.809

View more
  4 in total

1.  Variation in Birth Outcomes by Mother's Country of Birth Among Hispanic Women in the United States, 2013.

Authors:  Carla L DeSisto; Jill A McDonald
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 2.792

2.  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

3.  The impact of anti-tobacco legislation on birth weight in Peru.

Authors:  Patricia Mallma; Cesar Carcamo; Jay S Kaufman
Journal:  Glob Health Res Policy       Date:  2020-02-28

4.  Preterm disparities between foreign and Swedish born mothers depend on the method used to estimate gestational age. A Swedish population-based register study.

Authors:  Sol P Juárez; Marcelo L Urquia; Eleonora Mussino; Can Liu; Yao Qiao; Anders Hjern
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.