RESUMO
This study was done to determine the accuracy of fetal ultrasound (U.S.) predicting the estimated date of delivery (EDD) in a primarily Afro-Caribbean population in Antigua and Barbuda. A total of 206 women had retrospective review offetal ultrasound tests done between July 1994 and January 1996. The EDD based on last menstrual period (LMP) was calculated for 104 women with dates and compared with EDD calculated from ultrasound test. These were then compared with actual date of birth from maternity records. For women with unreliable menstrual data (102 women), ultrasound EDD was compared with actual date of birth. Ultrasound EDD demonstrated a trend toward being more accurate than menstrual history EDD, being 10.0 +/- 9.4 (mean +/- standard deviation) days off versus 13.3 +/- 15 days, p = 0.057, (n=104), CI: -0.1, 6.73 days. Ultrasound EDD was within ten days of delivery 60% of the time versus 57% for menstrual history EDD. The average error in estimating EDD was + 1.7 days for ultrasound and + 3.7 days for menstrual history. In women without menstrual history data (n=102), the ultrasound EDD was just as accurate in both the second trimester, 11.8 +/- 9.5 versus 11.4 +/- 10.7 days off (not statistically significant) and the third trimester, 10.0 +/- 8.0 versus 8.1 +/- 7.0 days off (not statistically significant). Fetal ultrasound is marginally better at predicting the date of birth compared with menstrual history but the difference does notjustify routine use for that purpose. When menstrual history is unknown, ultrasound EDD is just as accurate as when menstrual history is known, making it a very useful test.
Assuntos
Parto Obstétrico , Ultrassonografia Pré-Natal , Antígua e Barbuda/epidemiologia , Feminino , Idade Gestacional , Humanos , Lactente , Ciclo Menstrual , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Gravidez , Resultado da Gravidez/epidemiologia , Terceiro Trimestre da Gravidez , Prognóstico , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
This study was done to determine the accuracy of fetal ultrasound (U.S.) predicting the estimated date of delivery (EDD) in a primarily Afro-Caribbean population in Antigua and Barbuda. A total of 206 women had retrospective review offetal ultrasound tests done between July 1994 and January 1996. The EDD based on last menstrual period (LMP) was calculated for 104 women with dates and compared with EDD calculated from ultrasound test. These were then compared with actual date of birth from maternity records. For women with unreliable menstrual data (102 women), ultrasound EDD was compared with actual date of birth. Ultrasound EDD demonstrated a trend toward being more accurate than menstrual history EDD, being 10.0 +/- 9.4 (mean +/- standard deviation) days off versus 13.3 +/- 15 days, p = 0.057, (n=104), CI: -0.1, 6.73 days. Ultrasound EDD was within ten days of delivery 60 of the time versus 57 for menstrual history EDD. The average error in estimating EDD was + 1.7 days for ultrasound and + 3.7 days for menstrual history. In women without menstrual history data (n=102), the ultrasound EDD was just as accurate in both the second trimester, 11.8 +/- 9.5 versus 11.4 +/- 10.7 days off (not statistically significant) and the third trimester, 10.0 +/- 8.0 versus 8.1 +/- 7.0 days off (not statistically significant). Fetal ultrasound is marginally better at predicting the date of birth compared with menstrual history but the difference does notjustify routine use for that purpose. When menstrual history is unknown, ultrasound EDD is just as accurate as when menstrual history is known, making it a very useful test
Este estudio fue hecho para determinar la exactitud del ultrasonido fetal (EEUU) en la predicción de la fecha estimada de parto (FEP) en una población principalmente afro-caribeña en Antigua y Barbuda. A un total de 206 mujeres, se les hizo una revisión retrospectiva de las pruebas de ultrasonido fetal, entre julio del 1994 y enero de 1996. La FEP basada en la historia menstrual (UPM) se le calculó a 104 mujeres con fechas, comparándosele luego con la FEP calculada mediante la prueba de ultrasonido. Estas fueron entonces comparadas con la fecha real de nacimiento tomada de los archivos de maternidad. Para las mujeres con datos menstruales inestables (102 mujeres), la FEP basada en ultrasonido fue comparada con la fecha real de nacimiento. La FEP basada en el ultrasonido, mostró una tendencia a ser más exacta que la FEP basada en la historia menstrual, con 10.0 + 9.4 (media + desviación estándar) días de diferencia, frente a 13.3 + 15 días, p = 0.057, (n = 104), CI: -0.1, 6.73 días. La FEP mediante ultrasonido estuvo dentro de los 10 días de parto 60% del tiempo frente al 57% en el caso de la FEP basada en historia menstrual. El error medio de estimación de la FEP fue de + 1.7 días para el ultrasonido y + 3.7 días para la historia menstrual. En mujeres sin datos de historia menstrual (n = 102), la FEP mediante ultrasonido fue igualmente exacta tanto en el segundo trimestre, 11.8 + 9.5 frente a 11.4 + 10.7 días de diferencia, (no significativo estadísticamente) y el tercer trimestre, 10.0 + 8.0 frente a 8.1 + 7.0 días de diferencia, (no significativo estadísticamente). El ultrasonido fetal es marginalmente mejor en predecir la fecha de nacimiento en comparación con el procedimiento basado en la historia mensual, pero la diferencia no justifica el uso rutinario para ese propósito. Cuando se desconoce la historia menstrual, la FEP mediante ultrasonido es tan exacta como cuando se sabe la historia mensual, lo cual la hace una prueba muy útil.
Assuntos
Humanos , Feminino , Gravidez , Lactente , Parto Obstétrico , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Antígua e Barbuda/epidemiologia , Ciclo Menstrual , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Tempo , Idade Gestacional , Prognóstico , Resultado da Gravidez/epidemiologia , Terceiro Trimestre da Gravidez , Valor Preditivo dos TestesRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of foetal ultrasound (US) in predicting the estimated date of confinement (EDC) in a primarily Afro-Caribbean population in Antigua. DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective review of foetal ultrasound test done between July 1994 to January 1996 was performed. The EDC base on menstrual history (LMP) was calculated and compared with EDC calculated from ultrasound test. These were then compared with actual date of birth from Maternity records. For women with unreliable menstrual data, ultrasound EDC was compared with actual date of birth. Stillborn and premature or small for date pregnancies (birthweight < 2.5 kg) were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Foetal ultrasound is significantly better at predicting data of birth than LMP, but the difference does not justify routine use for that purpose.(AU)