Quantifying bias between reported last menstrual period and ultrasonography estimates of gestational age in Lusaka, Zambia
- PMID: 30267538
- PMCID: PMC6283668
- DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12686
Quantifying bias between reported last menstrual period and ultrasonography estimates of gestational age in Lusaka, Zambia
Abstract
Objective: To quantify differences in assessing preterm delivery when calculating gestational age from last menstrual period (LMP) versus ultrasonography biometry.
Methods: The Zambian Preterm Birth Prevention Study is an ongoing prospective cohort study that commenced enrolment in August 2015 at Women and Newborn Hospital of University Teaching Hospital in Lusaka, Zambia. Women at less than 20 weeks of pregnancy who were enrolled between August 17, 2015, and August 31, 2017, and underwent ultrasonography examination were included in the present analysis. The primary outcome was the difference between ultrasonography- and LMP-based estimated gestational age. Associations between baseline predictors and outcomes were assessed using simple regression. The proportion of preterm deliveries using LMP- and ultrasonography-derived gestational dating was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
Results: The analysis included 942 women. The discrepancy between estimating gestational age using ultrasonography and LMP increased with greater gestational age at presentation and among patients with no history of preterm delivery. In a Kaplan-Meier analysis of 692 deliveries, 140 (20.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.7-23.0) and 79 (11.4%, 95% CI 9.6-13.6) deliveries were classified as preterm by LMP and ultrasonography estimates, respectively.
Conclusion: Taking ultrasonography as a standard, a bias was observed in LMP-based gestational age estimates, which increased with advancing gestation at presentation. This resulted in misclassification of term deliveries as preterm.
Keywords: Gestational age; Gestational age estimation; Last menstrual period; Preterm birth; Ultrasonography; Zambia.
© 2018 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors have no conflicts of interest.
Figures



Similar articles
-
Reliability of last menstrual period recall, an early ultrasound and a Smartphone App in predicting date of delivery and classification of preterm and post-term births.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Jul 7;21(1):493. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03980-6. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021. PMID: 34233644 Free PMC article.
-
A comparison of LMP-based and ultrasound-based estimates of gestational age using linked California livebirth and prenatal screening records.Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007 Sep;21 Suppl 2:62-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00862.x. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007. PMID: 17803619
-
Improving preterm newborn identification in low-resource settings with machine learning.PLoS One. 2019 Feb 27;14(2):e0198919. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198919. eCollection 2019. PLoS One. 2019. PMID: 30811399 Free PMC article.
-
The research implications of the selection of a gestational age estimation method.Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007 Sep;21 Suppl 2:86-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00865.x. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007. PMID: 17803622 Review.
-
Influence of different methods for calculating gestational age at birth on prematurity and small for gestational age proportions: a systematic review with meta-analysis.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023 Feb 11;23(1):106. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05411-0. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023. PMID: 36774458 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
AI Estimation of Gestational Age from Blind Ultrasound Sweeps in Low-Resource Settings.NEJM Evid. 2022 May;1(5):10.1056/evidoa2100058. doi: 10.1056/evidoa2100058. Epub 2022 Mar 28. NEJM Evid. 2022. PMID: 36875289 Free PMC article.
-
Methodological Considerations for Preterm Birth Research.Front Glob Womens Health. 2022 Jan 11;2:821064. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2021.821064. eCollection 2021. Front Glob Womens Health. 2022. PMID: 35088058 Free PMC article.
-
Vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm delivery among HIV-infected pregnant women in Zambia: A feasibility study.PLoS One. 2020 Jan 29;15(1):e0224874. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224874. eCollection 2020. PLoS One. 2020. PMID: 31995557 Free PMC article.
-
Leveraging External Validation Data: The Challenges of Transporting Measurement Error Parameters.Epidemiology. 2024 Mar 1;35(2):196-207. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001701. Epub 2023 Jan 30. Epidemiology. 2024. PMID: 38079241 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of first trimester dating methods for gestational age estimation and their implication on preterm birth classification in a North Indian cohort.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Apr 30;21(1):343. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03807-4. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021. PMID: 33931016 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. The Lancet. 2012;379(9832):2162–2172. - PubMed
-
- Smid MC, Stringer EM, Stringer JS. A Worldwide Epidemic: The Problem and Challenges of Preterm Birth in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Am J Perinatol. 2016;33(3):276–289. - PubMed
-
- Li N, Sando MM, Spiegelman D, et al. Antiretroviral Therapy in Relation to Birth Outcomes among HIV-infected Women: A Cohort Study. J Infect Dis. 2016;213(7):1057–1064. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources