Literature DB >> 8251215

Estimated date of delivery from last menstrual period and ultrasound scan: which is more accurate?

S Rowlands1, P Royston.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine which is the more accurate predictor of the date of delivery for pregnant women in a community-based population: a calculation based on the last menstrual period or a prediction based on the measurement by ultrasound scanning of well-recognized fetal characteristics. A prospective study was conducted of 225 consecutive women reporting their pregnancy in a semi-rural general practice; 106 women were included in the analysis. The results showed that in over 50% of cases the estimated date of delivery derived from the ultrasound scan was more accurate than that derived from the last menstrual period, whatever the discrepancy between the two predictions. It can be concluded that all professionals involved with antenatal care should ignore the estimated date of delivery derived from the last menstrual period once a satisfactory scan has been obtained.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8251215      PMCID: PMC1372555     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  9 in total

1.  Conceptional age, menstrual age, and ultrasound age: a second-trimester comparison of pregnancies of known conception date with pregnancies dated from the last menstrual period.

Authors:  I K Rossavik; J I Fishburne
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1989-02       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Can we abandon Naegele's rule?

Authors:  N Saunders; C Paterson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1991-03-09       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Certain dates may not provide a reliable estimate of gestational age.

Authors:  R T Geirsson; R M Busby-Earle
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1991-01

Review 4.  Definitions used in relation to gestational age.

Authors:  M H Hall
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 3.980

5.  An improved method of fetal cephalometry by ultrasound.

Authors:  S Campbell
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw       Date:  1968-05

6.  Growth of the fetal biparietal diameter during normal pregnancy.

Authors:  S Campbell; G B Newman
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw       Date:  1971-06

7.  Growth of the ultrasound fetal femur length during normal pregnancy. Part I.

Authors:  G D O'Brien; J T Queenan
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1981-12-01       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age.

Authors:  S Campbell; S L Warsof; D Little; D J Cooper
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1985-05       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Ultrasound measurement of fetal limb bones.

Authors:  J T Queenan; G D O'Brien; S Campbell
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1980-10-01       Impact factor: 8.661

  9 in total
  4 in total

1.  Estimating time of delivery.

Authors:  S Rowlands; P Royston
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  The reliability of hand-written and computerised records of birth data collected at Baragwanath hospital in Soweto.

Authors:  G T Ellison; L M Richter; T de Wet; H E Harris; R D Griesel; J A McIntyre
Journal:  Curationis       Date:  1997-03

3.  Improving the accuracy of birth notification data: lessons from the Birth to Ten study.

Authors:  Gth Ellison; Lm Richter; T de Wet; He Harris; Rd Griesel; Ja McIntyre
Journal:  South Afr J Epidemiol Infect       Date:  1997

4.  Preterm birth: Case definition & guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunisation safety data.

Authors:  Julie-Anne Quinn; Flor M Munoz; Bernard Gonik; Lourdes Frau; Clare Cutland; Tamala Mallett-Moore; Aimee Kissou; Frederick Wittke; Manoj Das; Tony Nunes; Savia Pye; Wendy Watson; Ana-Maria Alguacil Ramos; Jose F Cordero; Wan-Ting Huang; Sonali Kochhar; Jim Buttery
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 3.641

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.