Cargando…

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 refer...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vitral, Gabriela Luiza Nogueira, Romanelli, Roberta Maia de Castro, Leonel, Tiago Alves, Souza Gaspar, Juliano de, Aguiar, Regina Amélia Lopes Pessoa de, Reis, Zilma Silveira Nogueira
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9921121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36774458
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05411-0
_version_ 1784887235872555008
author Vitral, Gabriela Luiza Nogueira
Romanelli, Roberta Maia de Castro
Leonel, Tiago Alves
Souza Gaspar, Juliano de
Aguiar, Regina Amélia Lopes Pessoa de
Reis, Zilma Silveira Nogueira
author_facet Vitral, Gabriela Luiza Nogueira
Romanelli, Roberta Maia de Castro
Leonel, Tiago Alves
Souza Gaspar, Juliano de
Aguiar, Regina Amélia Lopes Pessoa de
Reis, Zilma Silveira Nogueira
author_sort Vitral, Gabriela Luiza Nogueira
collection PubMed
description 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); I(2) 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; I(2): 0%); for biparietal diameter, risk difference was 0.00 (95%CI: -0.001 to 0.000; I(2): 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-023-05411-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9921121
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99211212023-02-12 Influence of different methods for calculating gestational age at birth on prematurity and small for gestational age proportions: a systematic review with meta-analysis Vitral, Gabriela Luiza Nogueira Romanelli, Roberta Maia de Castro Leonel, Tiago Alves Souza Gaspar, Juliano de Aguiar, Regina Amélia Lopes Pessoa de Reis, Zilma Silveira Nogueira BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research 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); I(2) 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; I(2): 0%); for biparietal diameter, risk difference was 0.00 (95%CI: -0.001 to 0.000; I(2): 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-023-05411-0. BioMed Central 2023-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9921121/ /pubmed/36774458 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05411-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Vitral, Gabriela Luiza Nogueira
Romanelli, Roberta Maia de Castro
Leonel, Tiago Alves
Souza Gaspar, Juliano de
Aguiar, Regina Amélia Lopes Pessoa de
Reis, Zilma Silveira Nogueira
Influence of different methods for calculating gestational age at birth on prematurity and small for gestational age proportions: a systematic review with meta-analysis
title Influence of different methods for calculating gestational age at birth on prematurity and small for gestational age proportions: a systematic review with meta-analysis
title_full Influence of different methods for calculating gestational age at birth on prematurity and small for gestational age proportions: a systematic review with meta-analysis
title_fullStr Influence of different methods for calculating gestational age at birth on prematurity and small for gestational age proportions: a systematic review with meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Influence of different methods for calculating gestational age at birth on prematurity and small for gestational age proportions: a systematic review with meta-analysis
title_short Influence of different methods for calculating gestational age at birth on prematurity and small for gestational age proportions: a systematic review with meta-analysis
title_sort influence of different methods for calculating gestational age at birth on prematurity and small for gestational age proportions: a systematic review with meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9921121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36774458
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05411-0
work_keys_str_mv AT vitralgabrielaluizanogueira influenceofdifferentmethodsforcalculatinggestationalageatbirthonprematurityandsmallforgestationalageproportionsasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT romanellirobertamaiadecastro influenceofdifferentmethodsforcalculatinggestationalageatbirthonprematurityandsmallforgestationalageproportionsasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT leoneltiagoalves influenceofdifferentmethodsforcalculatinggestationalageatbirthonprematurityandsmallforgestationalageproportionsasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT souzagasparjulianode influenceofdifferentmethodsforcalculatinggestationalageatbirthonprematurityandsmallforgestationalageproportionsasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT aguiarreginaamelialopespessoade influenceofdifferentmethodsforcalculatinggestationalageatbirthonprematurityandsmallforgestationalageproportionsasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT reiszilmasilveiranogueira influenceofdifferentmethodsforcalculatinggestationalageatbirthonprematurityandsmallforgestationalageproportionsasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis