A comparison of first trimester measurements for prediction of delivery date

被引:30
作者
Chalouhi, G. E. [1 ]
Bernard, J. P. [1 ]
Benoist, G. [1 ]
Nasr, B. [1 ]
Ville, Y. [1 ]
Salomon, Laurent J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Paris 05, CHU Necker Enfants Malad, AP HP, Serv Gynecol Obstet, F-75015 Paris, France
关键词
Biparietal diameter; crown-rump length; dating formula; first trimester; reproducibility; ultrasound; CROWN-RUMP LENGTH; VITRO FERTILIZED PREGNANCIES; GESTATIONAL-AGE; INTEROBSERVER REPRODUCIBILITY; FETAL-GROWTH; INTRAOBSERVER; BIOMETRY; CHARTS;
D O I
10.3109/14767051003728229
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective. We evaluated the biometric values of first trimester measurements for prediction of delivery date by computing new dating formulas and evaluating them within the same settings in a large population. Methods. We studied unselected pregnancies undergoing first trimester ultrasound examination by a single experimented sonographer. We used 331 pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive treatment to build a new dating formula and another 3667 normal pregnancies with spontaneous delivery to test the accuracy of these measurements and formulas. The reproducibility of the two measurements which performed best was done. Results. Crown-rump length (CRL) had the lowest random and systematic errors. The mean (SD) of errors in predicting day of delivery were 0.023 (7.873), 0.092 (7.928), 0.088 (8.208) and 0.269 (8.310) for CRL, biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC) and abdominal circumference (AC) respectively. CRL and BPD proved to be highly reproducible. The percentages of deliveries within +/- 10 and +/- 14 days of the predicted term were comparable for CRL and BPD but were significantly smaller when using HC, AC. Conclusions. Both CRL and BPD proved to be highly reproducible and able to predict with good precision the date of delivery. However, CRL has significantly lower random and systematic errors than all other biometric parameters.
引用
收藏
页码:51 / 57
页数:7
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]   CHARTS OF FETAL SIZE .1. METHODOLOGY [J].
ALTMAN, DG ;
CHITTY, LS .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1994, 101 (01) :29-34
[2]   New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy [J].
Altman, DG ;
Chitty, LS .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 1997, 10 (03) :174-191
[3]   Fetal growth in early pregnancy and risk of delivering low birth weight infant: prospective cohort study [J].
Bukowski, R. ;
Smith, G. C. S. ;
Malone, F. D. ;
Ball, R. H. ;
Nyberg, D. A. ;
Comstock, C. H. ;
Hankins, G. D. V. ;
Berkowitz, R. L. ;
Gross, S. J. ;
Dugoff, L. ;
Craigo, S. D. ;
Timor-Tritsch, I. E. ;
Carr, S. R. ;
Wolfe, H. M. ;
D'Alton, M. E. .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2007, 334 (7598) :836-838
[4]  
CAMPBELL S, 1985, OBSTET GYNECOL, V65, P613
[5]  
CAMPBELL S, 1969, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth, V76, P603
[6]  
*COM NAT TECHN ECH, 2009, REP NAT TECHN COMM P
[7]   A comparison of LMP-based and ultrasound-based estimates of gestational age using linked California livebirth and prenatal screening records [J].
Dietz, Patricia M. ;
England, Lucinda J. ;
Callaghan, William M. ;
Pearl, Michelle ;
Wier, Megan L. ;
Kharrazi, Martin .
PAEDIATRIC AND PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2007, 21 :62-71
[8]  
GEIRSSON RT, 1993, ACTA OBSTET GYN SCAN, V72, P344, DOI 10.3109/00016349309021109
[9]   Dating biometry during the first trimester: accuracy of an every-day practice [J].
Grange, G ;
Pannier, E ;
Goffinet, F ;
Cabrol, D ;
Zorn, JR .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2000, 88 (01) :61-64
[10]   Birthweight distributions by gestational age: comparison of LMP-based and ultrasound-based estimates of gestational age using data from the Swedish Birth Registry [J].
Haglund, Bengt .
PAEDIATRIC AND PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2007, 21 :72-78