Daniel W Skupski1, John Owen, Sungduk Kim, Karin M Fuchs, Paul S Albert, Katherine L Grantz. 1. Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Queens, New York; the Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama; the Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of a new formula with one developed in 1984 (and still in common use) and to develop and compare racial and ethnic-specific and racial and ethnic-neutral formulas. METHODS: The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Fetal Growth Studies-Singletons was a prospective cohort study that recruited women in four self-reported racial-ethnic groups-non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic white, and Asian-with singleton gestations from 12 U.S. centers (2009-2013). Women with a certain last menstrual period confirmed by first-trimester ultrasonogram had longitudinal fetal measurements by credentialed study ultrasonographers blinded to the gestational age at their five follow-up visits. Regression analyses were performed with linear mixed models to develop gestational age estimating formulas. Repeated cross-validation was used for validation. The estimation error was defined as the mean squared difference between the estimated and observed gestational age and was used to compare the formulas' accuracy. RESULTS: The new formula estimated the gestational age (±2 SD) within ±7 days from 14 to 20 weeks of gestation, ±10 days from 21 to 27 weeks of gestation, and ±17 days from 28 to 40 weeks of gestation. The new formula performed significantly better than a formula developed in 1984 with an estimation error of 10.4 compared with 11.2 days from 21 to 27 weeks of gestation and 17.0 compared with 19.8 days at 28-40 weeks of gestation, respectively. Racial and ethnic-specific formulas did not outperform the racial and ethnic-neutral formula. CONCLUSION: The NICHD gestational age estimation formula is associated with smaller errors than a well-established historical formula. Racial and ethnic-specific formulas are not superior to a racial-ethnic-neutral one.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of a new formula with one developed in 1984 (and still in common use) and to develop and compare racial and ethnic-specific and racial and ethnic-neutral formulas. METHODS: The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Fetal Growth Studies-Singletons was a prospective cohort study that recruited women in four self-reported racial-ethnic groups-non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic white, and Asian-with singleton gestations from 12 U.S. centers (2009-2013). Women with a certain last menstrual period confirmed by first-trimester ultrasonogram had longitudinal fetal measurements by credentialed study ultrasonographers blinded to the gestational age at their five follow-up visits. Regression analyses were performed with linear mixed models to develop gestational age estimating formulas. Repeated cross-validation was used for validation. The estimation error was defined as the mean squared difference between the estimated and observed gestational age and was used to compare the formulas' accuracy. RESULTS: The new formula estimated the gestational age (±2 SD) within ±7 days from 14 to 20 weeks of gestation, ±10 days from 21 to 27 weeks of gestation, and ±17 days from 28 to 40 weeks of gestation. The new formula performed significantly better than a formula developed in 1984 with an estimation error of 10.4 compared with 11.2 days from 21 to 27 weeks of gestation and 17.0 compared with 19.8 days at 28-40 weeks of gestation, respectively. Racial and ethnic-specific formulas did not outperform the racial and ethnic-neutral formula. CONCLUSION: The NICHD gestational age estimation formula is associated with smaller errors than a well-established historical formula. Racial and ethnic-specific formulas are not superior to a racial-ethnic-neutral one.
Authors: S C Perni; F A Chervenak; R B Kalish; S Magherini-Rothe; M Predanic; J Streltzoff; D W Skupski Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: J Morales-Roselló; D Hervás-Marín; O Stirrup; A Perales-Marín; A Khalil Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Germaine M Buck Louis; Jagteshwar Grewal; Paul S Albert; Anthony Sciscione; Deborah A Wing; William A Grobman; Roger B Newman; Ronald Wapner; Mary E D'Alton; Daniel Skupski; Michael P Nageotte; Angela C Ranzini; John Owen; Edward K Chien; Sabrina Craigo; Mary L Hediger; Sungduk Kim; Cuilin Zhang; Katherine L Grantz Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Katherine L Grantz; Jagteshwar Grewal; Paul S Albert; Ronald Wapner; Mary E D'Alton; Anthony Sciscione; William A Grobman; Deborah A Wing; John Owen; Roger B Newman; Edward K Chien; Robert E Gore-Langton; Sungduk Kim; Cuilin Zhang; Germaine M Buck Louis; Mary L Hediger Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-04-30 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Catherine Y Spong; Brian M Mercer; Mary D'Alton; Sarah Kilpatrick; Sean Blackwell; George Saade Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Ellen A Boamah; Kp Asante; Ka Ae-Ngibise; Patrick L Kinney; Darby W Jack; Grace Manu; Irene T Azindow; Seth Owusu-Agyei; Blair J Wylie Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2014-12-18
Authors: Yasmin Y Al-Gindan; Catherine Hankey; Lindsay Govan; Dympna Gallagher; Steven B Heymsfield; Michael E J Lean Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Zifan Wang; Cuilin Zhang; Paige L Williams; Andrea Bellavia; Blair J Wylie; Michele R Hacker; Kurunthachalam Kannan; Michael S Bloom; Kelly J Hunt; Russ Hauser; Tamarra James-Todd Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 7.401
Authors: Russell Fung; Jose Villar; Ali Dashti; Leila Cheikh Ismail; Eleonora Staines-Urias; Eric O Ohuma; Laurent J Salomon; Cesar G Victora; Fernando C Barros; Ann Lambert; Maria Carvalho; Yasmin A Jaffer; J Alison Noble; Michael G Gravett; Manorama Purwar; Ruyan Pang; Enrico Bertino; Shama Munim; Aung Myat Min; Rose McGready; Shane A Norris; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Stephen H Kennedy; Aris T Papageorghiou; Abbas Ourmazd Journal: Lancet Digit Health Date: 2020-06-23
Authors: Reema F Tayyem; Sabika S Allehdan; Razan M Alatrash; Fida F Asali; Hiba A Bawadi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Morten Rasmussen; Mitsu Reddy; Rory Nolan; Joan Camunas-Soler; Arkady Khodursky; Nikolai M Scheller; David E Cantonwine; Line Engelbrechtsen; Jia Dai Mi; Arup Dutta; Tiffany Brundage; Farooq Siddiqui; Mainou Thao; Elaine P S Gee; Johnny La; Courtney Baruch-Gravett; Mark K Santillan; Saikat Deb; Shaali M Ame; Said M Ali; Melanie Adkins; Mark A DePristo; Manfred Lee; Eugeni Namsaraev; Dorte Jensen Gybel-Brask; Lillian Skibsted; James A Litch; Donna A Santillan; Sunil Sazawal; Rachel M Tribe; James M Roberts; Maneesh Jain; Estrid Høgdall; Claudia Holzman; Stephen R Quake; Michal A Elovitz; Thomas F McElrath Journal: Nature Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 69.504
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