A comparison of first trimester measurements for prediction of delivery date

Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 51-57

  Chalouhi, G E ^a   Bernard, J P ^a   Benoist, G ^a   Nasr, B ^a   Ville, Y ^a   Salomon, Laurent J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

Author keywords

Biparietal diameter; crown rump length; dating formula; first trimester; reproducibility; ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; BIPARIETAL DISTANCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROWN RUMP LENGTH; DELIVERY; ECHOGRAPHY; FIRST TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; HEAD CIRCUMFERENCE; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SYSTEMATIC ERROR;

ALGORITHMS; BIOMETRY; CROWN-RUMP LENGTH; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEAD; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, FIRST; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 78650145777     PISSN: 14767058     EISSN: 14764954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14767051003728229     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Treloar AE, Behn BG, Cowan DW. Analysis of gestational interval. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1967;99:34-45.
2. Campbell S, Warsof S, Little D, Cooper DJ. Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 1985;65:613-620. (Pubitemid 15123925)
3. Waldenström U, Axelsson O, Nilsson S. A comparison of the ability of a sonographically measured biparietal diameter and the last menstrual period to predict the spontaneous onset of labour. Obstet Gynecol 1990;98:108-109.
4. Campbell S. The prediction of fetal maturity by ultrasonic measurement of the biparietal diameter. J Obstet Gynecol Br Commonw 1969;76:603-609.
5. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health, commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Antenatal care: routine care for the healthy pregnant woman. Internet. 2008. Electronic Citation. www. nice.org.uk/pdf/CG062NICEguideline.pdf. Last accessed March 2008.
6. Grange G, Pannier E, Goffinet F, Cabrol D, Zorn JR. Dating biometry during the first trimester: accuracy of an every-day practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000;88:61-64. (Pubitemid 30009372)
7. Dietz PM, England LJ, Callaghan WM, Pearl M, Wier ML, Kharrazi M. A comparison of LMP-based and ultrasoundbased estimates of gestational age using linked California livebirth and prenatal screening records. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21:62-71. (Pubitemid 47347808)
8. Haglund B. Birthweight distributions by gestational age: comparison of LMP-based and ultrasound-based estimates of gestational age using data from the Swedish Birth Registry. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21(Suppl 2):72-78. (Pubitemid 47347809)
9. Wisser J, Dirschedl P, Krone S. Estimation of gestational age by transvaginal sonographic measurement of greatest embryonic length in dated human embryos. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994;4:457-462.
10. Geirsson RT, Have G. Comparison of actual and ultrasound estimated second trimester gestational length in in-vitro fertilized pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993;72: 344-346. (Pubitemid 23217057)
11. Tunón K, Eik-Nes SH, Grøttum P, Von Düring V, Kahn JA. Gestational age in pregnancies conceived after in vitro fertilization: a comparison between age assessed from oocyte retrieval, crown-rump length and biparietal diameter. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;15:41-46. (Pubitemid 33108666)
12. Wennerholm U-B, Berg C, Hagberg H, Sultan B, Wennergren M. Gestational age in pregnancies after in vitro fertilization: comparison between ultrasound measurements and actual age. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;12:170-174. (Pubitemid 28474923)
13. Robinson HP, Fleming JE. A critical evaluation of sonar 'crown-rump length' measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1975;82:702-710.
14. Comité National Technique de l'Echographie de Dépistage Prénatal, Report from the National Technic Commitee for Prenatal Ultrasound Screening. Internet. 2009. Electronic Citation. http://www.sante. gouv.fr/htm/actu/sureau-henrion/rapport.pdf. Last accessed March 2009.
15. Nicolaides K. The 11-13+6 weeks scan. Fetal Medicine Foundation. Internet. 2004. Electronic Citation. http://www.studiolift.com/fetal/site/FMF- English.pdf. Last accessed March 2009.
16. Royston P, Wright EM. How to construct 'normal ranges' for fetal variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;11:30-38. (Pubitemid 28097444)
17. Altman DG, Chitty LS. Charts of fetal size: 1. Methodology. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101:29-34. (Pubitemid 24204771)
18. Altman DG, Chitty LS. New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy [Review]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10: 174-191. (Pubitemid 27472452)
19. Sladkevicius P, Saltvedt S, Almström H, Kublickas M, Grunewald C, Valentin L. Ultrasound dating at 12-14 weeks of gestation. A prospective cross-validation of established dating formulae in in-vitro fertilized pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;26:504-511. (Pubitemid 41634536)
20. Harrington D, MacKenzie I, Thompson K, Fleminger M, Greenwood C. Does a first trimester dating scan using crown rump length measurement reduce the rate of induction of labour for prolonged pregnancy? An uncompleted randomised controlled trial of 463 women. BJOG 2006;113:171-176.
21. Olesen AW, Thomsen SG. Prediction of delivery date by sonography in the first and second trimesters. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;28:292-297. (Pubitemid 44409055)
22. Perni SC, Chervenak FA, Kalish RB, Magherini-Rothe S, Predanic M, Streltzoff J, Skupski DW. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of fetal biometry. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;24:654-658. (Pubitemid 39536570)
23. Verburg BO, Mulder PG, Hofman A, Jaddoe VW, Witteman JC, Steegers EA. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility study of early fetal growth parameters. Prenat Diagn 2008;28:323-31. (Pubitemid 351519071)
24. Salomon LJ, Bernard M, Amarsy R, Bernard JP, Ville Y. The impact of crown rump length measurement error on combined Down syndrome screening. A simulation study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;33:506-511.
25. Saltvedt S, Almstrom H, Kublickas M, Reilly M, Valentin L, Grunewald C. Ultrasound dating at 12-14 weeks of gestation. A prospective cross-validation of established dating formulae in in-vitro fertilized pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;26:504-511. (Pubitemid 41634536)
26. Bukowski R, Uchida T, Smith GC, Malone FD, Ball RH, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, Hankins GD, Berkowitz RL, Gross SJ, et al. FASTER Research Consortium. Fetal growth in early pregnancy and risk of delivering low birth weight infant: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2007;334:836.