Dataset Information

Can the date of last menstrual period be trusted in the first trimester? Comparisons of gestational age measures from a prospective cohort study in six low-income to middle-income countries.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We examined gestational age (GA) estimates for live and still births, and prematurity rates based on last menstrual period (LMP) compared with ultrasonography (USG) among pregnant women at seven sites in six low-resource countries.

Design

Prospective cohort study SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study included data from the Global Network's population-based Maternal and Newborn Health Registry which follows pregnant women in six low-income and middle-income countries (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Zambia). Participants in this analysis were 42 803 women, including their 43 230 babies, who registered for the study in their first trimester based on GA estimated either by LMP or USG and had a live or stillbirth with an estimated GA of 20-42 weeks.

Outcome measures

GA was estimated in weeks and days based on LMP and/or USG. Prematurity was defined as GA of 20 weeks+0 days through 36 weeks+6 days, calculated by both USG and LMP.

Results

Overall, average GA varied ≤1 week between LMP and USG. Mean GA for live births by LMP was lower than by USG (adjusted mean difference (95% CI) = -0.23 (-0.29 to -0.17) weeks). Among stillbirths, a higher GA was estimated by LMP than USG (adjusted mean difference (95% CI)= 0.42 (0.11 to 0.72) weeks). Preterm birth rates for live births were significantly higher when dated by LMP (adjusted rate difference (95% CI)= 4.20 (3.56 to 4.85)). There was no significant difference in preterm birth rates for stillbirths.

Conclusion

The small differences in GA for LMP versus USG in the Guatemalan and Indian sites suggest that LMP may be a useful alternative to USG for GA dating during the first trimester until availability of USG improves in those areas. Further research is needed to assess LMP for first-trimester GA dating in other regions with limited access to USG.

Trial registration number

NCT01073475.

SUBMITTER: Patel A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10514667 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can the date of last menstrual period be trusted in the first trimester? Comparisons of gestational age measures from a prospective cohort study in six low-income to middle-income countries.

Patel Archana A Bann Carla M CM Thorsten Vanessa R VR Rao Sowmya R SR Lokangaka Adrien A Tshefu Kitoto Antoinette A Bauserman Melissa M Figueroa Lester L Krebs Nancy F NF Esamai Fabian F Bucher Sherri S Saleem Sarah S Goldenberg Robert L RL Chomba Elwyn E Carlo Waldemar A WA Goudar Shivaprasad S Derman Richard R Koso-Thomas Marion M McClure Elizabeth E Hibberd Patricia L PL

BMJ open 20230920 9

<h4>Objectives</h4>We examined gestational age (GA) estimates for live and still births, and prematurity rates based on last menstrual period (LMP) compared with ultrasonography (USG) among pregnant women at seven sites in six low-resource countries.<h4>Design</h4>Prospective cohort study SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study included data from the Global Network's population-based Maternal and Newborn Health Registry which follows pregnant women in six low-income and middle-income countries (Dem ...[more]

PMID: 37730415

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccurate estimation of gestational age is important for both clinical and public health purposes. Estimates of gestational age using fetal ultrasound measurements are considered most accurate but are frequently unavailable in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this study was to assess the validity of last menstrual period and Farr neonatal examination estimates of gestational age, compared to ultrasound estimates, in a large cohort of women in Vietnam.MethodsData for this analysis come from a randomized, placebo-controlled micronutrient supplementation trial in Vietnam. We analyzed 912 women with ultrasound and prospectively-collected last menstrual period estimates of gestational age and 685 women with ultrasound and Farr estimates of gestational age. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank sum test to assess differences in gestational age estimated by last menstrual period or Farr examination compared to ultrasound and computed the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) to quantify agreement between methods. We computed the Kappa coefficient (κ) to quantify agreement in preterm, term and post-term classification.ResultsThe median gestational age estimated by ultrasound was 273.9 days. Gestational age was slightly overestimated by last menstrual period (median 276.0 days, P < 0.001) and more greatly overestimated by Farr examination (median 286.7 days, P < 0.001). Gestational age estimates by last menstrual period and ultrasound were moderately correlated (ICC = 0.78) and concordant (CCC = 0.63), whereas gestational age estimates by Farr examination and ultrasound were weakly correlated (ICC = 0.26) and concordant (CCC = 0.05). Last menstrual period and ultrasound estimates of gestational age were within ± 14 days for 88.4% of women; Farr and ultrasound estimates were within ± 14 days for 55.8% of women. Last menstrual period and ultrasound estimates of gestational age had higher agreement in term classification (κ = 0.41) than Farr and ultrasound (κ = 0.05).ConclusionIn this study of women in Vietnam, we found last menstrual period provided a more accurate estimate of gestational age than the Farr examination when compared to ultrasound. These findings provide useful information about the utility and accuracy of different methods to estimate gestational age and suggest last menstrual period may be preferred over Farr examination in settings where ultrasound is unavailable.Trial registrationThe trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov as NCT01665378 on August 13, 2012.

Project description:Introduction and objectiveValidation studies of algorithms for pregnancy outcomes based on International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes are important for conducting drug safety research using administrative claims databases. To facilitate the conduct of pregnancy safety studies, this exploratory study aimed to develop and validate ICD-10-CM-based claims algorithms for date of last menstrual period (LMP) and pregnancy outcomes using medical records.MethodsUsing a mother-infant-linked claims database, the study included women with a pregnancy between 2016-2017 and their infants. Claims-based algorithms for LMP date utilized codes for gestational age (Z3A codes). The primary outcomes were major congenital malformations (MCMs) and spontaneous abortion; additional secondary outcomes were also evaluated. Each pregnancy outcome was identified using a claims-based simple algorithm, defined as presence of ≥ 1 claim for the outcome. Positive predictive values (PPV) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.ResultsOverall, 586 medical records were sought and 365 (62.3%) were adjudicated, including 125 records each for MCMs and spontaneous abortion. Last menstrual period date was validated among maternal charts procured for pregnancy outcomes and fewer charts were adjudicated for the secondary outcomes. The median difference in days between LMP date based on Z3A codes and adjudicated LMP date was 4.0 (interquartile range: 2.0-10.0). The PPV of the simple algorithm for spontaneous abortion was 84.7% (95% CI 78.3, 91.2). The PPV for the MCM algorithm was < 70%. The algorithms for the secondary outcomes pre-eclampsia, premature delivery, and low birthweight performed well, with PPVs > 70%.ConclusionsThe ICD-10-CM claims-based algorithm for spontaneous abortion performed well and may be used in pregnancy studies. Further algorithm refinement for MCMs is needed. The algorithms for LMP date and the secondary outcomes would benefit from additional validation in a larger sample.

Project description:BackgroundA 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThree 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.ConclusionsEUS 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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the prevalence and determinants of calendar literacy and last menstrual period (LMP) recall among women in Bangladesh.DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingsTwo rural subdistricts and one urban area from three Northern districts of Bangladesh.ParticipantsWe interviewed 2731 women who had a live birth in the last 1 year.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome variable was LMP recall and the secondary outcome was calendar literacy.ResultsThe majority of participants (65%) correctly mentioned the current date according to the English calendar while 12% mentioned according to the Bengali calendar. During the interview sessions, we used three different calendars: Bengali, English and Hijri to assess calendar literacy. We asked women to mark the current date using the calendar on the day of the interview. Almost 61% women marked the English calendar, 16% marked the Bengali calendar and 4% marked the Hijri calendar correctly. Sixty-three per cent women were found as calendar literate who marked any of the calendars. Among the participants, 58% had calendars available at their home and only 10% of women used calendars to track their LMPs. Overall, 53% women were able to recall their recent LMP. Among the calendar literate, 60% could recall their LMPs. Factors found associated with recalling LMP were: completed eight or more years of schooling (adj.OR 1.39), primigravida (adj.OR 1.88), the richest wealth quintile (adj.OR 1.55) and calendar literacy (adj.OR 1.59).ConclusionsDespite having reasonable calendar literacy and availability, the use of calendars for tracking LMP found very low. Calendar literacy and sociodemographic characteristics were found as the key factors associated with LMP recall. Maternal, neonatal and child health programmes in low-resource settings can promote a simple tool like calendar and target the communities where ultrasound is not available to ensure accurate LMP recall for early pregnancy registration and timely antenatal care coverage.

Dataset Information

Can the date of last menstrual period be trusted in the first trimester? Comparisons of gestational age measures from a prospective cohort study in six low-income to middle-income countries.

Objectives

Design

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration number

Publications

Can the date of last menstrual period be trusted in the first trimester? Comparisons of gestational age measures from a prospective cohort study in six low-income to middle-income countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets