Cargando…

Ultrasound‐based gestational‐age estimation in late pregnancy

OBJECTIVE: Accurate gestational‐age (GA) estimation, preferably by ultrasound measurement of fetal crown–rump length before 14 weeks' gestation, is an important component of high‐quality antenatal care. The objective of this study was to determine how GA can best be estimated by fetal ultrasoun...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Papageorghiou, A. T., Kemp, B., Stones, W., Ohuma, E. O., Kennedy, S. H., Purwar, M., Salomon, L. J., Altman, D. G., Noble, J. A., Bertino, E., Gravett, M. G., Pang, R., Cheikh Ismail, L., Barros, F. C., Lambert, A., Jaffer, Y. A., Victora, C. G., Bhutta, Z. A., Villar, J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26924421
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.15894
_version_ 1783441480252129280
author Papageorghiou, A. T.
Kemp, B.
Stones, W.
Ohuma, E. O.
Kennedy, S. H.
Purwar, M.
Salomon, L. J.
Altman, D. G.
Noble, J. A.
Bertino, E.
Gravett, M. G.
Pang, R.
Cheikh Ismail, L.
Barros, F. C.
Lambert, A.
Jaffer, Y. A.
Victora, C. G.
Bhutta, Z. A.
Villar, J.
author_facet Papageorghiou, A. T.
Kemp, B.
Stones, W.
Ohuma, E. O.
Kennedy, S. H.
Purwar, M.
Salomon, L. J.
Altman, D. G.
Noble, J. A.
Bertino, E.
Gravett, M. G.
Pang, R.
Cheikh Ismail, L.
Barros, F. C.
Lambert, A.
Jaffer, Y. A.
Victora, C. G.
Bhutta, Z. A.
Villar, J.
author_sort Papageorghiou, A. T.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Accurate gestational‐age (GA) estimation, preferably by ultrasound measurement of fetal crown–rump length before 14 weeks' gestation, is an important component of high‐quality antenatal care. The objective of this study was to determine how GA can best be estimated by fetal ultrasound for women who present for the first time late in pregnancy with uncertain or unknown menstrual dates. METHODS: INTERGROWTH‐21(st) was a large, prospective, multicenter, population‐based project performed in eight geographically defined urban populations. One of its principal components, the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study, aimed to develop international fetal growth standards. Each participant had their certain menstrual dates confirmed by first‐trimester ultrasound examination. Fetal head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter (BPD), occipitofrontal diameter (OFD), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) were measured every 5 weeks from 14 weeks' gestation until delivery. For each participant, a single, randomly selected ultrasound examination was used to explore all candidate biometric variables and permutations to build models to predict GA. Regression equations were ranked based upon minimization of the mean prediction error, goodness of fit and model complexity. An automated machine learning algorithm, the Genetic Algorithm, was adapted to evaluate > 64 000 potential polynomial equations as predictors. RESULTS: Of the 4607 eligible women, 4321 (94%) had a pregnancy without major complications and delivered a live singleton without congenital malformations. After other exclusions (missing measurements in GA window and outliers), the final sample comprised 4229 women. Two skeletal measures, HC and FL, produced the best GA prediction, given by the equation log(e)(GA) = 0.03243 × (log(e)(HC))(2) + 0.001644 × FL × log(e)(HC) + 3.813. When FL was not available, the best equation based on HC alone was log(e)(GA) = 0.05970 × (log(e)(HC))(2) + 0.000000006409 × (HC)(3) + 3.3258. The estimated uncertainty of GA prediction (half width 95% interval) was 6–7 days at 14 weeks' gestation, 12–14 days at 26 weeks' gestation and > 14 days in the third trimester. The addition of FL to the HC model led to improved prediction intervals compared with using HC alone, but no further improvement in prediction was afforded by adding AC, BPD or OFD. Equations that included other measurements (BPD, OFD and AC) did not perform better. CONCLUSIONS: Among women initiating antenatal care late in pregnancy, a single set of ultrasound measurements combining HC and FL in the second trimester can be used to estimate GA with reasonable accuracy. We recommend this tool for underserved populations but considerable efforts should be implemented to improve early initiation of antenatal care worldwide. © 2016 Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6680349
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66803492019-08-09 Ultrasound‐based gestational‐age estimation in late pregnancy Papageorghiou, A. T. Kemp, B. Stones, W. Ohuma, E. O. Kennedy, S. H. Purwar, M. Salomon, L. J. Altman, D. G. Noble, J. A. Bertino, E. Gravett, M. G. Pang, R. Cheikh Ismail, L. Barros, F. C. Lambert, A. Jaffer, Y. A. Victora, C. G. Bhutta, Z. A. Villar, J. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Original Papers OBJECTIVE: Accurate gestational‐age (GA) estimation, preferably by ultrasound measurement of fetal crown–rump length before 14 weeks' gestation, is an important component of high‐quality antenatal care. The objective of this study was to determine how GA can best be estimated by fetal ultrasound for women who present for the first time late in pregnancy with uncertain or unknown menstrual dates. METHODS: INTERGROWTH‐21(st) was a large, prospective, multicenter, population‐based project performed in eight geographically defined urban populations. One of its principal components, the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study, aimed to develop international fetal growth standards. Each participant had their certain menstrual dates confirmed by first‐trimester ultrasound examination. Fetal head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter (BPD), occipitofrontal diameter (OFD), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) were measured every 5 weeks from 14 weeks' gestation until delivery. For each participant, a single, randomly selected ultrasound examination was used to explore all candidate biometric variables and permutations to build models to predict GA. Regression equations were ranked based upon minimization of the mean prediction error, goodness of fit and model complexity. An automated machine learning algorithm, the Genetic Algorithm, was adapted to evaluate > 64 000 potential polynomial equations as predictors. RESULTS: Of the 4607 eligible women, 4321 (94%) had a pregnancy without major complications and delivered a live singleton without congenital malformations. After other exclusions (missing measurements in GA window and outliers), the final sample comprised 4229 women. Two skeletal measures, HC and FL, produced the best GA prediction, given by the equation log(e)(GA) = 0.03243 × (log(e)(HC))(2) + 0.001644 × FL × log(e)(HC) + 3.813. When FL was not available, the best equation based on HC alone was log(e)(GA) = 0.05970 × (log(e)(HC))(2) + 0.000000006409 × (HC)(3) + 3.3258. The estimated uncertainty of GA prediction (half width 95% interval) was 6–7 days at 14 weeks' gestation, 12–14 days at 26 weeks' gestation and > 14 days in the third trimester. The addition of FL to the HC model led to improved prediction intervals compared with using HC alone, but no further improvement in prediction was afforded by adding AC, BPD or OFD. Equations that included other measurements (BPD, OFD and AC) did not perform better. CONCLUSIONS: Among women initiating antenatal care late in pregnancy, a single set of ultrasound measurements combining HC and FL in the second trimester can be used to estimate GA with reasonable accuracy. We recommend this tool for underserved populations but considerable efforts should be implemented to improve early initiation of antenatal care worldwide. © 2016 Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2016-12-09 2016-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6680349/ /pubmed/26924421 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.15894 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Papers
Papageorghiou, A. T.
Kemp, B.
Stones, W.
Ohuma, E. O.
Kennedy, S. H.
Purwar, M.
Salomon, L. J.
Altman, D. G.
Noble, J. A.
Bertino, E.
Gravett, M. G.
Pang, R.
Cheikh Ismail, L.
Barros, F. C.
Lambert, A.
Jaffer, Y. A.
Victora, C. G.
Bhutta, Z. A.
Villar, J.
Ultrasound‐based gestational‐age estimation in late pregnancy
title Ultrasound‐based gestational‐age estimation in late pregnancy
title_full Ultrasound‐based gestational‐age estimation in late pregnancy
title_fullStr Ultrasound‐based gestational‐age estimation in late pregnancy
title_full_unstemmed Ultrasound‐based gestational‐age estimation in late pregnancy
title_short Ultrasound‐based gestational‐age estimation in late pregnancy
title_sort ultrasound‐based gestational‐age estimation in late pregnancy
topic Original Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6680349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26924421
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.15894
work_keys_str_mv AT papageorghiouat ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT kempb ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT stonesw ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT ohumaeo ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT kennedysh ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT purwarm ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT salomonlj ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT altmandg ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT nobleja ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT bertinoe ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT gravettmg ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT pangr ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT cheikhismaill ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT barrosfc ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT lamberta ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT jafferya ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT victoracg ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT bhuttaza ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT villarj ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy
AT ultrasoundbasedgestationalageestimationinlatepregnancy