Cargando…
Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study
To assess associations between discrepancy of pregnancy dating methods and adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for discrepancy categories among all singleton births from the Medical Birth Register (1995–2010) with...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932022/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29720591 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24894-y |
_version_ | 1783319740220964864 |
---|---|
author | Kullinger, Merit Granfors, Michaela Kieler, Helle Skalkidou, Alkistis |
author_facet | Kullinger, Merit Granfors, Michaela Kieler, Helle Skalkidou, Alkistis |
author_sort | Kullinger, Merit |
collection | PubMed |
description | To assess associations between discrepancy of pregnancy dating methods and adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for discrepancy categories among all singleton births from the Medical Birth Register (1995–2010) with estimated date of delivery (EDD) by last menstrual period (LMP) minus EDD by ultrasound (US) −20 to +20 days. Negative/positive discrepancy was a fetus smaller/larger than expected when dated by US (EDD postponed/changed to an earlier date). Large discrepancy was <10(th) or >90(th) percentile. Reference was median discrepancy ±2 days. Odds for diabetes and preeclampsia were higher in pregnancies with negative discrepancy, and for most delivery outcomes in case of large positive discrepancy (+9 to +20 days): shoulder dystocia [OR 1.16 (95% CI 1.01–1.33)] and sphincter injuries [OR 1.13 (95% CI 1.09–1.17)]. Odds for adverse neonatal outcomes were higher in large negative discrepancy (−4 to −20 days): low Apgar score [OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.09–1.27)], asphyxia [OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.11–1.25)], fetal death [OR 1.47 (95% CI 1.32–1.64)], and neonatal death [OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.91–2.50)]. In conclusion, especially, large negative discrepancy was associated with increased risks of adverse perinatal outcomes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5932022 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59320222018-08-29 Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study Kullinger, Merit Granfors, Michaela Kieler, Helle Skalkidou, Alkistis Sci Rep Article To assess associations between discrepancy of pregnancy dating methods and adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for discrepancy categories among all singleton births from the Medical Birth Register (1995–2010) with estimated date of delivery (EDD) by last menstrual period (LMP) minus EDD by ultrasound (US) −20 to +20 days. Negative/positive discrepancy was a fetus smaller/larger than expected when dated by US (EDD postponed/changed to an earlier date). Large discrepancy was <10(th) or >90(th) percentile. Reference was median discrepancy ±2 days. Odds for diabetes and preeclampsia were higher in pregnancies with negative discrepancy, and for most delivery outcomes in case of large positive discrepancy (+9 to +20 days): shoulder dystocia [OR 1.16 (95% CI 1.01–1.33)] and sphincter injuries [OR 1.13 (95% CI 1.09–1.17)]. Odds for adverse neonatal outcomes were higher in large negative discrepancy (−4 to −20 days): low Apgar score [OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.09–1.27)], asphyxia [OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.11–1.25)], fetal death [OR 1.47 (95% CI 1.32–1.64)], and neonatal death [OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.91–2.50)]. In conclusion, especially, large negative discrepancy was associated with increased risks of adverse perinatal outcomes. Nature Publishing Group UK 2018-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5932022/ /pubmed/29720591 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24894-y Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Kullinger, Merit Granfors, Michaela Kieler, Helle Skalkidou, Alkistis Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study |
title | Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study |
title_full | Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study |
title_fullStr | Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study |
title_short | Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study |
title_sort | discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932022/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29720591 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24894-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kullingermerit discrepancybetweenpregnancydatingmethodsaffectsobstetricandneonataloutcomesapopulationbasedregistercohortstudy AT granforsmichaela discrepancybetweenpregnancydatingmethodsaffectsobstetricandneonataloutcomesapopulationbasedregistercohortstudy AT kielerhelle discrepancybetweenpregnancydatingmethodsaffectsobstetricandneonataloutcomesapopulationbasedregistercohortstudy AT skalkidoualkistis discrepancybetweenpregnancydatingmethodsaffectsobstetricandneonataloutcomesapopulationbasedregistercohortstudy |