Advantages of the population-based approach to pregnancy dating: Results from 23 020 ultrasound examinations

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 563-568

  Okland I ^a,b   Nakling, J ^c   Gjessing, H K ^d,e   Grottum P ^f   Eik Nes, S H ^b,g  

^a STAVANGER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b TRONDHEIM UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c INNLANDET HOSPITAL TRUST   (Norway)

^d NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Norway)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^f UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^g NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

date of delivery; fetal measurements; gestational age; post term pregnancy; second trimester; term prediction

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DELIVERY; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FEMUR; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; REFERENCE VALUE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SECOND TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; SKULL; TIME;

DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; FEMALE; FEMUR; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; PARIETAL BONE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, SECOND; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REFERENCE VALUES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TIME FACTORS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 84860433799     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.10081     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Whitworth M, Bricker L, Neilson JP, Dowswell T,. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; Issue 4: CD007058. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.
2. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Antenatal care. Routine care for the healthy pregnant woman. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: London, 2010; [Accessed 10 March 2011].
3. Okland I, Gjessing HK, Grttum P, Eik-Nes SH,. Biases of traditional term prediction models: results from different sample-based models evaluated on 41 343 ultrasound examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36: 728-734.
4. Okland I, Gjessing HK, Grttum P, Eggeb TM, Eik-Nes SH,. A new population-based term prediction model vs. two traditional sample-based models: validation on 9046 ultrasound examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 207-213.
5. Gjessing HK, Grttum P, Eik-Nes SH,. A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population-based approach. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 19-27. (Pubitemid 47074847)
6. Hutchon DJ, Ahmed F,. Naegele's rule: a reappraisal. BJOG 2001; 108: 775.
7. Salomon LJ, Pizzi C, Gasparrini A, Bernard JP, Ville Y,. Prediction of the date of delivery based on first trimester ultrasound measurements: an independent method from estimated date of conception. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2010; 23: 1-9.
8. Hyett JA, Perdu M, Sharland GK, Snijders RS, Nicolaides KH,. Increased nuchal translucency at 10-14 weeks of gestation as a marker for major cardiac defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 10: 242-246. (Pubitemid 27485319)
9. Snijders RJ, Johnson S, Sebire NJ, Noble PL, Nicolaides KH,. First-trimester ultrasound screening for chromosomal defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7: 216-226. (Pubitemid 126720367)
10. Miljeteig I, Markestad T, Norheim OF,. Physicians' use of guidelines and attitudes to withholding and withdrawing treatment for extremely premature neonates in Norway. Acta Paediatr 2007; 96: 825-829. (Pubitemid 46846913)
11. Pignotti MS,. Extremely preterm births: recommendations for treatment in European countries. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2008; 93: 403-406.
12. Zeitlin J, Blondel B, Alexander S, Breart G,. Variation in rates of postterm birth in Europe: reality or artefact? BJOG 2007; 114: 1097-1103. (Pubitemid 47247018)
13. Gulmezoglu AM, Crowther CA, Middleton P,. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; Issue 4: CD004945. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.
14. Lynch CD, Zhang J,. The research implications of the selection of a gestational age estimation method. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007; 21 Suppl 2: 86-96. (Pubitemid 47347811)
15. Blondel B, Morin I, Platt RW, Kramer MS, Usher R, Breart G,. Algorithms for combining menstrual and ultrasound estimates of gestational age: consequences for rates of preterm and postterm birth. BJOG 2002; 109: 718-720. (Pubitemid 37329287)
16. Eik-Nes SH, Grttum P,. Graviditetskalenderen Snurra. Scan-Med A/S: Drammen, Norway; 1983.
17. Johnsen SL, Rasmussen S, Sollien R, Kiserud T,. Fetal age assessment based on ultrasound head biometry and the effect of maternal and fetal factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83: 716-723. (Pubitemid 39062145)
18. Johnsen SL, Rasmussen S, Sollien R, Kiserud T,. Fetal age assessment based on femur length at 10-25 weeks of gestation, and reference ranges for femur length to head circumference ratios. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005; 84: 725-733. (Pubitemid 41039893)
19. Altman DG, Chitty LS,. New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 10: 174-191. (Pubitemid 27472452)
20. Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Deter RL, Park SK,. Fetal femur length as a predictor of menstrual age: sonographically measured. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1982; 138: 875-878. (Pubitemid 12117584)
21. Okland I, BjÃstad TG, Johansen TF, Gjessing HK, Grttum P, Eik-Nes SH,. Narrowed beam width in newer ultrasound machines shortens measurements in the lateral direction: fetal measurement charts may be obsolete. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 82-87.
22. Gjessing HK, Grttum P,. Accuracy of second trimester fetal head circumference and biparietal diameter for predicting the time of spontaneous birth. J Perinat Med 2007; 35: 350-351; author reply 351-352. (Pubitemid 47036975)
23. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2010; [Accessed 15 January 2011].
24. Backe B, Nakling J,. Term prediction with ultrasound: evaluation of a new dating curve for biparietal diameter measurements. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85: 156-159. (Pubitemid 43879235)
25. Eik-Nes SH, Grttum P, Gjessing HK,. Regarding "Term prediction with ultrasound: evaluation of a new dating curve for biparietal diameter". Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85: 1276-1278; author reply 1278-1279. (Pubitemid 44498182)
26. Tunon K, Eik-Nes SH, Grttum P,. A comparison between ultrasound and a reliable last menstrual period as predictors of the day of delivery in 15 000 examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 8: 178-185. (Pubitemid 126720516)
27. Verburg BO, Steegers EA, De Ridder M, Snijders RJ, Smith E, Hofman A, Moll HA, Jaddoe VW, Witteman JC,. New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy and assessment of fetal growth: longitudinal data from a population-based cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 388-396.
28. Tunón K, Eik-Nes SH, Grttum P,. Fetal outcome when the ultrasound estimate of the day of delivery is more than 14 days later than the last menstrual period estimate. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 14: 17-22. (Pubitemid 29410489)
29. Nguyen TH, Larsen T, Engholm G, Mller H,. A discrepancy between gestational age estimated by last menstrual period and biparietal diameter may indicate an increased risk of fetal death and adverse pregnancy outcome. BJOG 2000; 107: 1122-1129.