Preterm or not - an evaluation of estimates of gestational age in a cohort of women from rural Papua New Guinea

dc.contributor.authorKarl, Stephan
dc.contributor.authorLi Wai Suen, Connie S. N.
dc.contributor.authorUnger, Holger Werner
dc.contributor.authorOme-Kaius, Maria
dc.contributor.authorMola, Glen
dc.contributor.authorWhite, Lisa
dc.contributor.authorWangnapi, Regina A.
dc.contributor.authorRogerson, Stephen John
dc.contributor.authorMueller, Ivo
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-04T13:06:27Z
dc.date.available2016-02-04T13:06:27Z
dc.date.issued2015-05-06
dc.date.updated2016-02-02T15:35:43Z
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Knowledge of accurate gestational age is required for comprehensive pregnancy care and is an essential component of research evaluating causes of preterm birth. In industrialised countries gestational age is determined with the help of fetal biometry in early pregnancy. Lack of ultrasound and late presentation to antenatal clinic limits this practice in low-resource settings. Instead, clinical estimators of gestational age are used, but their accuracy remains a matter of debate. METHODS: In a cohort of 688 singleton pregnancies from rural Papua New Guinea, delivery gestational age was calculated from Ballard score, last menstrual period, symphysis-pubis fundal height at first visit and quickening as well as mid- and late pregnancy fetal biometry. Published models using sequential fundal height measurements and corrected last menstrual period to estimate gestational age were also tested. Novel linear models that combined clinical measurements for gestational age estimation were developed. Predictions were compared with the reference early pregnancy ultrasound (<25 gestational weeks) using correlation, regression and Bland-Altman analyses and ranked for their capability to predict preterm birth using the harmonic mean of recall and precision (F-measure). RESULTS: Average bias between reference ultrasound and clinical methods ranged from 0-11 days (95% confidence levels: 14-42 days). Preterm birth was best predicted by mid-pregnancy ultrasound (F-measure: 0.72), and neuromuscular Ballard score provided the least reliable preterm birth prediction (F-measure: 0.17). The best clinical methods to predict gestational age and preterm birth were last menstrual period and fundal height (F-measures 0.35). A linear model combining both measures improved prediction of preterm birth (F-measure: 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Estimation of gestational age without ultrasound is prone to significant error. In the absence of ultrasound facilities, last menstrual period and fundal height are among the more reliable clinical measures. This study underlines the importance of strengthening ultrasound facilities and developing novel ways to estimate gestational age.
dc.format.extent17 p.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.pmid25945927
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2445/69248
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherPublic Library of Science (PLoS)
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124286
dc.relation.ispartofPLoS One, 2015, vol. 10, num. 5, p. e0124286
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP7/201588/EU//PREGVAX
dc.relation.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124286
dc.rightscc by (c) Karl et al., 2015
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/
dc.sourceArticles publicats en revistes (ISGlobal)
dc.subject.classificationEmbaràs
dc.subject.classificationEstadística mèdica
dc.subject.classificationEdat gestacional
dc.subject.classificationPart prematur
dc.subject.otherPregnancy
dc.subject.otherMedical statistics
dc.subject.otherGestational age
dc.subject.otherPremature labor
dc.titlePreterm or not - an evaluation of estimates of gestational age in a cohort of women from rural Papua New Guinea
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Fitxers

Paquet original

Mostrant 1 - 1 de 1
Carregant...
Miniatura
Nom:
karl2015_1875.pdf
Mida:
904.87 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format