Dataset Information

Validity of gestational age estimates by last menstrual period and neonatal examination compared to ultrasound in Vietnam.

ABSTRACT: Accurate 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.Data 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 (?) to quantify agreement in preterm, term and post-term classification.The median gestational age estimated by ultrasound was 273.9 days. Gestational age was slightly overestimated by last menstrual period (median 276.0 days, P?

SUBMITTER: Deputy NP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5225544 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validity of gestational age estimates by last menstrual period and neonatal examination compared to ultrasound in Vietnam.

Deputy Nicholas P NP Nguyen Phuong H PH Pham Hoa H Nguyen Son S Neufeld Lynnette L Martorell Reynaldo R Ramakrishnan Usha U

BMC pregnancy and childbirth 20170111 1

<h4>Background</h4>Accurate 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.<h4>Metho ...[more]

PMID: 28077098

Similar Datasets

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.

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:Out-of-pocket payments (OOPs), direct payments by households or individuals for healthcare are part of the health financing landscape. Data on OOPs is needed to monitor progress in financial risk protection, and the evaluation of health financing policies. In low-and-middle-income countries, estimates of OOPs rely heavily on self-reported data from household surveys. These surveys require respondents to recall events in the past and can suffer from recall biases. This study investigates the effect of recall period on the agreement of the amount and timing of inpatient OOPs between household reports and provider records in Bavi, Vietnam. We recruited 1397 households for interview using records from the district hospital. The households were interviewed with identical questionnaires except that the recall period was either 12 or 6 months. We linked household with provider data and excluded medicine costs from both household and provider OOPs since they could be purchased outside the hospital. We estimated the effect of recall period on the overall mean and variability of ratios of household to hospital reported OOPs using the Bland-Altman approach for method comparison. We estimated the effect of recall period on whether a transaction was recalled correctly in expenditure and time using multinomial regression. The households reported higher amounts of OOPs than did the hospital for both recall periods. There was no evidence of an effect of recall period on the mean of the ratios of household- to hospital-reported OOPs, although the confidence intervals are not inconsistent with previous studies indicating higher OOPs for shorter recall periods. The geometric mean ratio for the 6-month period was estimated to be a multiple of 1.4 (95% CI 0.9, 2.1) times that of the 12-month period. Similarly, there was no evidence of an effect of recall period on the risk of reporting lower or higher amounts than provider OOPs. The occurrence and timing of inpatient stays generally recalled well, with 70% remembered in the correct month declining slightly over time. Respondents for the 6-month recall period had a significantly lower risk of failing to report the event (RR 0.8 (0.7, 1.0)). The results suggest the best recall period may depend on whether the purpose of a survey is for the recall of the timing of events, in which case the 6 month period may be better, or the amounts of OOPs, where there was no significant difference and the provider records are not a gold standard but the 12 month period had a tendency to be in closer agreement with the provider OOPs.

Project description:Dietary intake assessment with diet records (DR) is a standard research and practice tool in nutrition. Manual entry and analysis of DR is time-consuming and expensive. New electronic tools for diet entry by clients and research participants may reduce the cost and effort of nutrient intake estimation.To determine the validity of electronic diet recording, we compared responses to 3-day DR kept by Tap & Track software for the Apple iPod Touch and records kept on the Nutrihand website to DR coded and analyzed by a research dietitian into a customized US Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutrient analysis program, entitled GRAND (Grand Forks Research Analysis of Nutrient Data).Adult participants (n=19) enrolled in a crossover-designed clinical trial. During each of two washout periods, participants kept a written 3-day DR. In addition, they were randomly assigned to enter their DR in a Web-based dietary analysis program (Nutrihand) or a handheld electronic device (Tap & Track). They completed an additional 3-day DR and the alternate electronic diet recording methods during the second washout. Entries resulted in 228 daily diet records or 12 for each of 19 participants. Means of nutrient intake were calculated for each method. Concordance of the intake estimates were determined by Bland-Altman plots. Coefficients of determination (R(2)) were calculated for each comparison to assess the strength of the linear relationship between methods.No significant differences were observed between the mean nutrient values for energy, carbohydrate, protein, fat, saturated fatty acids, total fiber, or sodium between the recorded DR analyzed in GRAND and either Nutrihand or Tap & Track, or for total sugars comparing GRAND and Tap & Track. Reported values for total sugars were significantly reduced (P<.05) comparing Nutrihand to GRAND. Coefficients of determination (R(2)) for Nutrihand and Tap & Track compared to DR entries into GRAND, respectively, were energy .56, .01; carbohydrate .58, .08; total fiber .65, .37; sugar .78, .41; protein .44, .03; fat .36, .03; saturated fatty acids .23, .03; sodium .20, .00; and for Nutrihand only for cholesterol .88; vitamin A .02; vitamin C .37; calcium .05; and iron .77. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrates high variability in individual responses for both electronic capture programs with higher 95% limits of agreement for dietary intake recorded on Tap & Track.In comparison to dietitian-entered 3-day DR, electronic methods resulted in no significant difference in mean nutrient estimates but exhibited larger variability, particularly the Tap & Track program. However, electronic DR provided mean estimates of energy, macronutrients, and some micronutrients, which approximated those of the dietitian-analyzed DR and may be appropriate for dietary monitoring of groups. Electronic diet assessment methods have the potential to reduce the cost and burden of DR analysis for nutrition research and clinical practice.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01183520; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01183520 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6VSdYznKX).

Dataset Information

Validity of gestational age estimates by last menstrual period and neonatal examination compared to ultrasound in Vietnam.

Publications

Validity of gestational age estimates by last menstrual period and neonatal examination compared to ultrasound in Vietnam.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets