Anne Cc Lee1,2, Pratik Panchal3,4, Lian Folger5, Hilary Whelan6, Rachel Whelan7, Bernard Rosner2,8, Hannah Blencowe9,10, Joy E Lawn9,10. 1. Department of Pediatric Newborn Medicine, and alee6@bwh.harvard.edu. 2. Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Clinical Research, OpenBiome, Somerville, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Pediatric Newborn Medicine, and. 6. Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. 7. Department of Research, Community Partners International, Yangon, Myanmar; and. 8. Channing Division of Network Medicine, Departments of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health and. 10. The Centre for Maternal, Adolescent, Reproductive, and Child Health (MARCH), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
CONTEXT: An estimated 15 million neonates are born preterm annually. However, in low- and middle-income countries, the dating of pregnancy is frequently unreliable or unknown. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of neonatal assessments to estimate gestational age (GA). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, POPLINE, and World Health Organization library databases. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of live-born infants in which researchers compared neonatal signs or assessments for GA estimation with a reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data on study population, design, bias, reference standard, test methods, accuracy, agreement, validity, correlation, and interrater reliability. RESULTS: Four thousand nine hundred and fifty-six studies were screened and 78 included. We identified 18 newborn assessments for GA estimation (ranging 4 to 23 signs). Compared with ultrasound, the Dubowitz score dated 95% of pregnancies within ±2.6 weeks (n = 7 studies), while the Ballard score overestimated GA (0.4 weeks) and dated pregnancies within ±3.8 weeks (n = 9). Compared with last menstrual period, the Dubowitz score dated 95% of pregnancies within ± 2.9 weeks (n = 6 studies) and the Ballard score, ±4.2 weeks (n = 5). Assessments with fewer signs tended to be less accurate. A few studies showed a tendency for newborn assessments to overestimate GA in preterm infants and underestimate GA in growth-restricted infants. LIMITATIONS: Poor study quality and few studies with early ultrasound-based reference. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts in low- and middle-income countries should focus on improving dating in pregnancy through ultrasound and improving validity in growth-restricted populations. Where ultrasound is not possible, increased efforts are needed to develop simpler yet specific approaches for newborn assessment through new combinations of existing parameters, new signs, or technology.
CONTEXT: An estimated 15 million neonates are born preterm annually. However, in low- and middle-income countries, the dating of pregnancy is frequently unreliable or unknown. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of neonatal assessments to estimate gestational age (GA). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, POPLINE, and World Health Organization library databases. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of live-born infants in which researchers compared neonatal signs or assessments for GA estimation with a reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data on study population, design, bias, reference standard, test methods, accuracy, agreement, validity, correlation, and interrater reliability. RESULTS: Four thousand nine hundred and fifty-six studies were screened and 78 included. We identified 18 newborn assessments for GA estimation (ranging 4 to 23 signs). Compared with ultrasound, the Dubowitz score dated 95% of pregnancies within ±2.6 weeks (n = 7 studies), while the Ballard score overestimated GA (0.4 weeks) and dated pregnancies within ±3.8 weeks (n = 9). Compared with last menstrual period, the Dubowitz score dated 95% of pregnancies within ± 2.9 weeks (n = 6 studies) and the Ballard score, ±4.2 weeks (n = 5). Assessments with fewer signs tended to be less accurate. A few studies showed a tendency for newborn assessments to overestimate GA in preterm infants and underestimate GA in growth-restricted infants. LIMITATIONS: Poor study quality and few studies with early ultrasound-based reference. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts in low- and middle-income countries should focus on improving dating in pregnancy through ultrasound and improving validity in growth-restricted populations. Where ultrasound is not possible, increased efforts are needed to develop simpler yet specific approaches for newborn assessment through new combinations of existing parameters, new signs, or technology.
Authors: Dorothy Sebikari; Mona Farhad; Terry Fenton; Maxensia Owor; Jeffrey S A Stringer; Min Qin; Nahida Chakhtoura; Benjamin H Chi; Friday Saidi; Neetal Nevrekar; Avy Violari; Tsungai Chipato; James A McIntyre; Dhayendre Moodley; Taha E Taha; Gerhard Theron; Mary Glenn Fowler Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Steven Hawken; Malia S Q Murphy; Robin Ducharme; A Brianne Bota; Lindsay A Wilson; Wei Cheng; Ma-Am Joy Tumulak; Maria Melanie Liberty Alcausin; Ma Elouisa Reyes; Wenjuan Qiu; Beth K Potter; Julian Little; Mark Walker; Lin Zhang; Carmencita Padilla; Pranesh Chakraborty; Kumanan Wilson Journal: Gates Open Res Date: 2021-06-21
Authors: Malia S Q Murphy; Steven Hawken; Wei Cheng; Lindsay A Wilson; Monica Lamoureux; Matthew Henderson; Beth Potter; Julian Little; Pranesh Chakraborty; Kumanan Wilson Journal: Gates Open Res Date: 2018-05-30
Authors: Zilma Silveira Nogueira Reis; Rodney Nascimento Guimarães; Maria Albertina Santiago Rego; Roberta Maia de Castro Romanelli; Juliano de Souza Gaspar; Gabriela Luiza Nogueira Vitral; Marconi Augusto Aguiar Dos Reis; Enrico Antônio Colósimo; Gabriela Silveira Neves; Marynea Silva Vale; Paulo de Jesus Hartamann Nader; Marta David Rocha de Moura; Regina Amélia Pessoa Lopes de Aguiar Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Archana B Patel; Kunal Kurhe; Amber Prakash; Savita Bhargav; Suchita Parepalli; Elizabeth V Fogleman; Janet L Moore; Dennis D Wallace; Hemant Kulkarni; Patricia L Hibberd Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2019-03-12
Authors: Gabriela Luiza Nogueira Vitral; Regina Amélia P Lopes Aguiar; Ingrid Michelle Fonseca de Souza; Maria Albertina Santiago Rego; Rodney Nascimento Guimarães; Zilma Silveira Nogueira Reis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rachel M Jones; Linda Vesel; Grace Kimenju; Teresa Ogolla; Meghan Munson; Sarah Little; Sathyanath Rajasekharan; Mary Nell Wegner; Ana Langer; Nicholas Pearson Journal: Glob Health Action Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 2.640
Authors: Kathryn Millar; Suha Patel; Meghan Munson; Linda Vesel; Shalini Subbiah; Rachel M Jones; Sarah Little; Aris T Papageorghiou; Jose Villar; Mary Nell Wegner; Nick Pearson; Faith Muigai; Catherine Ongeti; Ana Langer Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2018-06-22