4.6 Article

Predicting delivery date by ultrasound and last menstrual period in early gestation

Journal

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 97, Issue 2, Pages 189-194

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(00)01131-5

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare last menstrual period and ultrasonography in predicting delivery date. Methods: We used ultrasound to scan 17,221 nonselected singleton pregnancies at 8-16 completed weeks. The last menstrual period (LMP) was considered certain in 13,541 and uncertain in 3680 cases. The duration of pregnancy from the scan to the day of spontaneous delivery was predicted by crown-rump length, biparietal diameter (BPD), and femur length (FL) using linear regression models, and the results were compared with estimates based on LMP. Results: At all gestational ages, ultrasound was superior to certain LMP in predicting the day of delivery by at least 1.7 days. When deliveries before 37 weeks were excluded, crown-rump length measurement of 15-60 mm (corresponding to 8-12.5 weeks) had the lowest prediction error of 7.3 days. After that time, BPD (at least 21 mm) showed a similar error (7.3 days) and was more precise than crown-rump length. Femur length was slightly less accurate than crown-rump length or BPD. Regression models using a combination of any two or three ultrasonic variables did not improve accuracy of prediction. When ultrasound was used instead of certain LMP, the number of postterm pregnancies decreased from 10.3% to 2.7% (P < .001). Conclusion: Ultrasound was more accurate than LMP in dating, and when it was used the number of postterm pregnancies decreased. Crown-rump length of 15-60 mm was superior to BPD, but then BPD (at least 21 mm) was more precise. Combining more than one ultrasonic measurements did not improve dating accuracy. (Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:189-94. (C) 2001 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available