Literature DB >> 7730922

Early ultrasound dating of pregnancy: selection and measurement biases.

M L Reuss1, M C Hatch, M Susser.   

Abstract

Can using early ultrasound examinations to date pregnancy introduce information bias in perinatal research? Our purpose was to identify determinants of early ultrasound examinations and to compare early ultrasound to menstrual history dating. Between January 1987 and June 1989, 1159 white, largely middle class, prenatal patients were contacted for a prospective observational study. 876 (76%) agreed to participate. Of these 764 (87%) met the eligibility criteria for this analysis, namely singleton pregnancy, delivered after 20 weeks (spontaneous or induced, vaginal or c-section), with prenatal chart abstracted. Selection factors for early ultrasound identified in multivariate analysis were: bleeding in early pregnancy, OR = 1.9 (1.0, 3.5), attendance at health maintenance organization OR = 7.2 (3.4, 15), no insurance or Medicaid only OR = 0.3 (0.1, 0.6), and increasing time from last menstrual period to first prenatal visit in weeks OR = 0.89 (0.85, 0.93). In conformity with previous results, ultrasound dating of pregnancy led to a higher estimate of preterm delivery (10 vs 7.6%), a higher estimate of term delivery (87.2 vs 82.7%) and a lower estimate of postterm delivery (2.8 vs 9.7%) than dating by menstrual history, p < 0.001. Selection factors and measurement issues, such as those described here, could introduce bias and should be carefully considered in the design, analysis and interpretation of perinatal research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7730922     DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00162-j

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  6 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.  Racial differences in the patterns of singleton preterm delivery in the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey.

Authors:  C Blackmore-Prince; B Kieke; K A Kugaraj; C Ferré; L D Elam-Evans; C J Krulewitch; J A Gaudino; M Overpeck
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  1999-12

3.  A performance indicator of psychosocial services in enhanced prenatal care of Medicaid-eligible women.

Authors:  D S Wilkinson; C C Korenbrot; J Greene
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  1998-09

4.  Assessing the accuracy of ultrasound estimation of gestational age during routine antenatal care in in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies.

Authors:  Bridget Knight; Aaron Brereton; Roy J Powell; Helen Liversedge
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2018-02-07

5.  Effects of induction of labour versus expectant management in women with impending post-term pregnancies: the 41 week - 42 week dilemma.

Authors:  Joep C Kortekaas; Aafke Bruinsma; Judit K J Keulen; Jeroen van Dillen; Martijn A Oudijk; Joost J Zwart; Jannet J H Bakker; Dokie de Bont; Marianne Nieuwenhuijze; Pien M Offerhaus; Anton H van Kaam; Frank Vandenbussche; Ben Willem J Mol; Esteriek de Miranda
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2014-10-23       Impact factor: 3.007

6.  Ultrasound Reference Chart Based on IVF Dates to Estimate Gestational Age at 6-9 weeks' Gestation.

Authors:  Pavitra Delpachitra; Kirsten Palmer; Joseph Onwude; Simon Meagher; Luk Rombauts; Karen Waalwyk; Michael Bethune; Stephen Tong
Journal:  ISRN Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-07-22
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.