EARLY ULTRASOUND DATING OF PREGNANCY - SELECTION AND MEASUREMENT BIASES

被引：17

作者：

REUSS, ML

HATCH, MC

SUSSER, M

机构：

[1] COLUMBIA UNIV,DEPT OBSTET & GYNECOL,NEW YORK,NY 10032

[2] COLUMBIA UNIV,DIV EPIDEMIOL,NEW YORK,NY 10032

来源：

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY | 1995年 / 48卷 / 05期

关键词：

GESTATIONAL AGE; ULTRASOUND; SELECTION BIAS; MEASUREMENT ERROR; PREGNANCY;

D O I：

10.1016/0895-4356(94)00162-J

中图分类号：

R19 [保健组织与事业（卫生事业管理）];

学科分类号：

摘要：

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.

引用

页码：667 / 674

页数：8

共 32 条

[1]

Kramer, McLean, Boyd, Usher, The validity of gestational age estimation by menstrual dating in term, preterm, and postterm gestations, JAMA, 260, pp. 3306-3308, (1988)

[2]

Kline, Stein, Susser, Preterm delivery: I. Indices and enumeration, Conception to Birth: Epidemiology of Prenatal Development, pp. 176-178, (1989)

[3]

Berg, Bracken, Measuring gestational age: an uncertain proposition, Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 99, pp. 280-282, (1992)

[4]

Hadlock, Harrist, Hohler, Determination of fetal age, Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, (1985)

[5]

Campbell, Warsof, Little, Cooper, Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age, Obstet Gynecol, 65, pp. 613-620, (1985)

[6]

Rossavik, Fishburne, 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, Obstet Gynecol, 73, pp. 243-249, (1989)

[7]

Hall, Definitions used in relation to gestational age, Paediat Perinat Epidemiol, 4, pp. 123-128, (1990)

[8]

Constantine, Kraemer, Kendall-Tackett, Bennett, Tyson, Gross, Use of physical and neurologic observations in assessment of gestational age in low birth weight infants, J Pediatr, 110, pp. 921-928, (1987)

[9]

Alexander, Hulsey, Smeriglio, Comfort, Levkoff, Factors influencing the relationship between a new born assessment of gestational maturity and the gestational age interval, Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol, 4, pp. 133-146, (1990)

[10]

Alexander, de Caunes, Hulsey, Tompkins, Allen, Validity of postnatal assessments of gestational age: a comparison of the method of Ballard et al and early sonography, Am J Obstet Gynecol, 166, pp. 891-895, (1992)

← 1 2 3 4 →