Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jul 7;21(1):493.
doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03980-6.

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

Affiliations

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

Linda Majola et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. .

Abstract

Background: A reliable expected date of delivery (EDD) is important for pregnant women in planning for a safe delivery and critical for management of obstetric emergencies. We compared the accuracy of LMP recall, an early ultrasound (EUS) and a Smartphone App in predicting the EDD in South African pregnant women. We further evaluated the rates of preterm and post-term births based on using the different measures.

Methods: This is a retrospective sub-study of pregnant women enrolled in a randomized controlled trial between October 2017-December 2019. EDD and gestational age (GA) at delivery were calculated from EUS, LMP and Smartphone App. Data were analysed using SPSS version 25. A Bland-Altman plot was constructed to determine the limits of agreement between LMP and EUS.

Results: Three hundred twenty-five pregnant women who delivered at term (≥ 37 weeks by EUS) and without pregnancy complications were included in this analysis. Women had an EUS at a mean GA of 16 weeks and 3 days). The mean difference between LMP dating and EUS is 0.8 days with the limits of agreement 31.4-30.3 days (Concordance Correlation Co-efficient 0.835; 95%CI 0.802, 0.867). The mean(SD) of the marginal time distribution of the two methods differ significantly (p = 0.00187). EDDs were < 14 days of the actual date of delivery (ADD) for 287 (88.3%;95%CI 84.4-91.4), 279 (85.9%;95%CI 81.6-89.2) and 215 (66.2%;95%CI 60.9-71.1) women for EUS, Smartphone App and LMP respectively but overall agreement between EUS and LMP was only 46.5% using a five category scale for EDD-ADD with a kappa of .22. EUS 14-24 weeks and EUS < 14 weeks predicted EDDs < 14 days of ADD in 88.1% and 79.3% of women respectively. The proportion of births classified as preterm (< 37 weeks) was 9.9% (95%CI 7.1-13.6) by LMP and 0.3% (95%CI 0.1-1.7) by Smartphone App. The proportion of post-term (> 42 weeks gestation) births was 11.4% (95%CI 8.4-15.3), 1.9% (95%CI 0.9-3.9) and 3.4% (95%CI 1.9-5.9) by LMP, EUS and Smartphone respectively.

Conclusions: EUS and Smartphone App were the most accurate to estimate the EDD in pregnant women. LMP-based dating resulted in misclassification of a significantly greater number of preterm and post-term deliveries compared to EUS and the Smartphone App.

Keywords: ACOG smartphone app; Estimated Date of Delivery; Last normal menstrual period recall; Preterm birth misclassification; Ultrasound dating.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Limits of agreement between LMP and EUS (Bland JM, Altman DG (1986)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kernel density estimates of deviation of the actual delivery date from the estimated delivery date of delivery calculated from an ultrasound (EUS), last menstrual period (LMP) and ACOG App

References

    1. Committee Opinion No 700: Methods for Estimating the Due Date. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(5):e150-e154. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002046. PMID: 28426621. - PubMed
    1. Reis ZSN, Gaspar JS, Vitral GLN, et al. Quality of Pregnancy Dating and Obstetric Interventions During Labor: Retrospective Database Analysis. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2020;3(1):e14109. doi: 10.2196/14109. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jones RM, Vesel L, Kimenju G, et al. Implementation of the INTERGROWTH-21st gestational dating and fetal and newborn growth standards in Nairobi, Kenya: women's experiences with ultrasound and newborn assessment. Glob Health Action. 2020;13(1):1770967. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2020.1770967. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organisation. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241549912. Accessed 12Mar2021. - PubMed
    1. McClure EM, Nathan RO, Saleem S, et al. First look: a cluster randomized trial of ultrasound to improve pregnancy outcomes in low income country settings. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:73. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-73. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms