Discordant dating of pregnancy by LMP and ultrasound and its implications in perinatal statistics

Influence of different methods for calculating gestational age at birth on prematurity and small for gestational age proportions: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recognizing premature newborns and small-for-gestational-age (SGA) is essential for providing care and supporting public policies. This systematic review aims to identify the influence of the last menstrual period (LMP) compared to ultrasonography (USG) before 24 weeks of gestation references on prematurity and SGA proportions at birth.

METHODS

Systematic review with meta-analysis followed the recommendations of the PRISMA Statement. PubMed, BVS, LILACS, Scopus-Elsevier, Embase-Elsevier, and Web-of-Science were searched (10-30-2022). The research question was: (P) newborns, (E) USG for estimating GA, (C) LMP for estimating GA, and (O) prematurity and SGA rates for both methods. Independent reviewers screened the articles and extracted the absolute number of preterm and SGA infants, reference standards, design, countries, and bias. Prematurity was birth before 37 weeks of gestation, and SGA was the birth weight below the p10 on the growth curve. The quality of the studies was assessed using the New-Castle-Ottawa Scale. The difference between proportions estimated the size effect in a meta-analysis of prevalence.

RESULTS

Among the 642 articles, 20 were included for data extraction and synthesis. The prematurity proportions ranged from 1.8 to 33.6% by USG and varied from 3.4 to 16.5% by the LMP. The pooled risk difference of prematurity proportions revealed an overestimation of the preterm birth of 2% in favor of LMP, with low certainty: 0.02 (95%CI: 0.01 to 0.03); I² 97%). Subgroup analysis of USG biometry (eight articles) showed homogeneity for a null risk difference between prematurity proportions when crown-rump length was the reference: 0.00 (95%CI: -0.001 to 0.000; I²: 0%); for biparietal diameter, risk difference was 0.00 (95%CI: -0.001 to 0.000; I²: 41%). Only one report showed the SGA proportions of 32% by the USG and 38% by the LMP.

CONCLUSIONS

LMP-based GA, compared to a USG reference, has little or no effect on prematurity proportions considering the high heterogeneity among studies. Few data (one study) remained unclear the influence of such references on SGA proportions. Results reinforced the importance of qualified GA to mitigate the impact on perinatal statistics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration number PROSPERO: CRD42020184646.

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

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.