Advanced

Mid-trimester ultrasound prediction of gestational age: advantages and systematic errors

Källén, Karin LU (2002) In Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 20(6). p.558-563
Abstract
Objective To detect possible sources of bias in ultrasound prediction of gestational age. Subjects and Methods Using the Swedish Medical Birth Registry, 571 617 women were identified who were delivered between 1990 and 1997 and who had obtainable information on last menstrual period and expected date of delivery according to ultrasound. Results Male fetuses were more likely than females to be judged older than the last menstrual period date suggested at early fetometry. The estimated magnitude of the systematic error by infant gender corresponded to 1.5 days. Similarly, the fetuses of young women, multiparous women, smokers and women with low educational level were at increased risk of being smaller than expected at ultrasound examination... (More)
Objective To detect possible sources of bias in ultrasound prediction of gestational age. Subjects and Methods Using the Swedish Medical Birth Registry, 571 617 women were identified who were delivered between 1990 and 1997 and who had obtainable information on last menstrual period and expected date of delivery according to ultrasound. Results Male fetuses were more likely than females to be judged older than the last menstrual period date suggested at early fetometry. The estimated magnitude of the systematic error by infant gender corresponded to 1.5 days. Similarly, the fetuses of young women, multiparous women, smokers and women with low educational level were at increased risk of being smaller than expected at ultrasound examination in early pregnancy. A strong association was seen between adjustments of expected date of delivery -7 days or more and small-for-gestational age according to ultrasound at birth. Compared to singleton pregnancies, twin pregnancies were more likely to be judged more progressed at ultrasound fetometry than the last menstrual period date suggested. Conclusions Compared to last menstrual period estimates, routine ultrasound measurements to predict date of delivery are comparatively reliable but systematic errors are inherent in the method. The erroneous adjusted dates may be due to incorrect measurements or systematic bias (e.g. gender), but they are also likely to reflect early growth restriction (e.g. in the case of maternal smoking and small-for-gestational age). Further studies are needed to investigate whether the systematic errors in ultrasound prediction of gestational age could lead to suboptimal obstetric management in adjusted pregnancies. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
twins, maternal smoking, growth restriction, gender, gestational age, ultrasound
in
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
volume
20
issue
6
pages
558 - 563
publisher
John Wiley & Sons
external identifiers
  • pmid:12493044
  • wos:000179911700007
  • scopus:0036905590
ISSN
1469-0705
DOI
10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00855.x
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
ff958d8b-fcc0-44df-905b-d855e72d6988 (old id 321212)
date added to LUP
2007-10-29 13:59:00
date last changed
2017-06-18 04:34:43
@article{ff958d8b-fcc0-44df-905b-d855e72d6988,
  abstract     = {Objective To detect possible sources of bias in ultrasound prediction of gestational age. Subjects and Methods Using the Swedish Medical Birth Registry, 571 617 women were identified who were delivered between 1990 and 1997 and who had obtainable information on last menstrual period and expected date of delivery according to ultrasound. Results Male fetuses were more likely than females to be judged older than the last menstrual period date suggested at early fetometry. The estimated magnitude of the systematic error by infant gender corresponded to 1.5 days. Similarly, the fetuses of young women, multiparous women, smokers and women with low educational level were at increased risk of being smaller than expected at ultrasound examination in early pregnancy. A strong association was seen between adjustments of expected date of delivery -7 days or more and small-for-gestational age according to ultrasound at birth. Compared to singleton pregnancies, twin pregnancies were more likely to be judged more progressed at ultrasound fetometry than the last menstrual period date suggested. Conclusions Compared to last menstrual period estimates, routine ultrasound measurements to predict date of delivery are comparatively reliable but systematic errors are inherent in the method. The erroneous adjusted dates may be due to incorrect measurements or systematic bias (e.g. gender), but they are also likely to reflect early growth restriction (e.g. in the case of maternal smoking and small-for-gestational age). Further studies are needed to investigate whether the systematic errors in ultrasound prediction of gestational age could lead to suboptimal obstetric management in adjusted pregnancies.},
  author       = {Källén, Karin},
  issn         = {1469-0705},
  keyword      = {twins,maternal smoking,growth restriction,gender,gestational age,ultrasound},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {6},
  pages        = {558--563},
  publisher    = {John Wiley & Sons},
  series       = {Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology},
  title        = {Mid-trimester ultrasound prediction of gestational age: advantages and systematic errors},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00855.x},
  volume       = {20},
  year         = {2002},
}