Literature DB >> 7638326

Discordance between LMP-based and clinically estimated gestational age: implications for research, programs, and policy.

G R Alexander1, M E Tompkins, D J Petersen, T C Hulsey, J Mor.   

Abstract

This study examines the comparability between the last menstrual period-based and clinically estimated gestational age as collected on certificates of live birth. It explores whether sociodemographic or delivery characteristics influence their agreement and contrasts health status and health care utilization indicators, such as preterm, small for gestational age, and adequacy of prenatal care percentages, produced by each gestational age measure. The 1989-91 South Carolina public use live birth files were used for this analysis. A total of 169,082 single births to resident mothers were selected for investigation. The clinically estimated gestational age distribution exhibited a higher mean and a tendency toward even number digit preference. The last menstrual period-based measure produced higher preterm and postterm percentages. More than 60 percent of the last menstrual period-based preterm births were classified as preterm by the clinical estimate. The sensitivity of the clinical estimate was 27 percent for postterm births. The overall concordance (the percentage of cases with the same value for both measures) was 47 percent, but it varied considerably by gestational age. Between 30 and 35 weeks, the clinical estimate exceeded the last menstrual period-based value by 2 weeks or more for more than 40 percent of the cases. Concordance also varied by race of mother, hospital delivery size, trimester prenatal care began, and birth weight. The last menstrual period-based and the clinically estimated gestational age distributions exhibited notable dissimilarities, produced marked differences in health status indicators, and varied in concordance by gestational age and by sociodemographic, prenatal care, and hospital characteristics. These systematic differences suggest that a transition from the traditionally used last menstrual period-based measure to the clinical estimate or a composite measure will not produce uniform results across geo-political areas and at-risk groups but will be appreciably influenced by population and health care characteristics.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7638326      PMCID: PMC1382148     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Public Health Rep        ISSN: 0033-3549            Impact factor:   2.792


  38 in total

1.  Intrauterine growth curves: intra- and international comparisons with different ethnic groups in California.

Authors:  R L Williams
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  Gestational age reporting and preterm delivery.

Authors:  G R Alexander; M E Tompkins; D A Cornely
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1990 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.792

3.  Source of bias in prenatal care utilization indices: implications for evaluating the Medicaid expansion.

Authors:  G R Alexander; M E Tompkins; D J Petersen; J Weiss
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Factors influencing the relationship between a newborn assessment of gestational maturity and the gestational age interval.

Authors:  G R Alexander; T C Hulsey; V L Smeriglio; M Comfort; A Levkoff
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 3.980

5.  Prenatal care utilization: its measurement and relationship to pregnancy outcome.

Authors:  G R Alexander; D A Cornely
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1987 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Nonspecific date of last menstrual period: an indication of poor reproductive outcome.

Authors:  W H Wenner; E B Young
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1974-12-15       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 7.  The estimation of the postmenstrual age: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  P Casaer; Y Akiyama
Journal:  Dev Med Child Neurol       Date:  1970-12       Impact factor: 5.449

8.  Postnatal overestimation of gestational age in preterm infants.

Authors:  H Shukla; Y S Atakent; A Ferrara; J Topsis; C Antoine
Journal:  Am J Dis Child       Date:  1987-10

9.  Epidemiology of pregnancies with unknown last menstrual period.

Authors:  P Buekens; P Delvoye; E Wollast; C Robyn
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 3.710

10.  The extent and antecedents of uncertain gestation.

Authors:  M H Hall; R A Carr-Hill; C Fraser; D Campbell; M L Samphier
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1985-05
View more
  34 in total

1.  Dating gestational age by last menstrual period, symphysis-fundal height, and ultrasound in urban Pakistan.

Authors:  Imtiaz Jehan; Shahida Zaidi; Sameera Rizvi; Naushaba Mobeen; Elizabeth M McClure; Breda Munoz; Omrana Pasha; Linda L Wright; Robert L Goldenberg
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.561

2.  The relationship of socioeconomic status to preterm contractions and preterm delivery.

Authors:  Nedra S Whitehead
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2012-11

3.  Comparison of two measures of gestational age among low income births. The potential impact on health studies, New York, 2005.

Authors:  Victoria Lazariu; Christopher F Davis; Louise-Anne McNutt
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2013-01

4.  Evaluation of gestational age estimate method on the calculation of preterm birth rates.

Authors:  Eric S Hall; Alonzo T Folger; Elizabeth A Kelly; Beena Devi Kamath-Rayne
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2014-04

5.  Interethnic mating and risk for preterm birth among Arab-American mothers: evidence from the Arab-American Birth Outcomes Study.

Authors:  Abdulrahman M El-Sayed; Sandro Galea
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2011-06

6.  The accurate measurement of gestational age--a critical step toward improving fetal death reporting and perinatal health.

Authors:  G R Alexander
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  The use of missing birth record data as a marker for adverse reproductive outcomes: a geocoded analysis of birth record data.

Authors:  Adrienne J Headley; Mark C Fulcomer; Matthew M Bastardi; Wansoo Im; Marcia M Sass; Katherine Chung
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 1.798

Review 8.  Mapping fetal brain development in utero using magnetic resonance imaging: the Big Bang of brain mapping.

Authors:  Colin Studholme
Journal:  Annu Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2011-08-15       Impact factor: 9.590

9.  Effect of interpregnancy interval on infant low birth weight: a retrospective cohort study using the Michigan Maternally Linked Birth Database.

Authors:  Bao-Ping Zhu; Thu Le
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2003-09

10.  Determining gestational age in a low-resource setting: validity of last menstrual period.

Authors:  Rebecca E Rosenberg; A S M Nawshad U Ahmed; Saifuddin Ahmed; Samir K Saha; M A K Azad Chowdhury; Robert E Black; Mathuram Santosham; Gary L Darmstadt
Journal:  J Health Popul Nutr       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.000

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.