Suppr超能文献

利用加利福尼亚州关联的出生记录和产前筛查记录,比较基于末次月经(LMP)和基于超声的孕周估计值。

A comparison of LMP-based and ultrasound-based estimates of gestational age using linked California livebirth and prenatal screening records.

作者信息

Dietz Patricia M, England Lucinda J, Callaghan William M, Pearl Michelle, Wier Megan L, Kharrazi Martin

机构信息

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.

出版信息

Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007 Sep;21 Suppl 2:62-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2007.00862.x.

Abstract

Although early ultrasound (<20 weeks' gestation) systematically underestimates the gestational age of smaller fetuses by approximately 1-2 days, this bias is relatively small compared with the large error introduced by last menstrual period (LMP) estimates of gestation, as evidenced by the number of implausible birthweight-for-gestational age. To characterise this misclassification, we compared gestational age estimates based on LMP from California birth certificates with those based on early ultrasound from a California linked Statewide Expanded Alpha-fetoprotein Screening Program (XAFP). The final sample comprised 165 908 women. Birthweight distributions were plotted by gestational age; sensitivity and positive predictive value for preterm rates according to LMP were calculated using ultrasound as the 'gold standard'. For gestational ages 20-27 and 28-31 weeks, the LMP-based birthweight distributions were bimodal, whereas the ultrasound-based distributions were unimodal, but had long right tails. At 32-36 weeks, the LMP distribution was wider, flatter, and shifted to the right, compared with the ultrasound distribution. LMP vs. ultrasound estimates were, respectively, 8.7% vs. 7.9% preterm (<37 weeks), 81.2% vs. 91.0% term (37-41 weeks), and 10.1% vs. 1.1% post-term (>or=42 weeks). The sensitivity of the LMP-based preterm birth estimate was 64.3%, and the positive predictive value was 58.7%. Overall, 17.2% of the records had estimates with an absolute difference of >14 days. The groups most likely to have inconsistent gestational age estimates included African American and Hispanic women, younger and less-educated women, and those who entered prenatal care after the second month of pregnancy. In conclusion, we found substantial misclassification of LMP-based gestational age. The 2003 revised US Standard Certificate of Live Birth includes a new gestational age item, the obstetric estimate. It will be important to assess whether this estimate addresses the problems presented by LMP-based gestational age.

摘要

尽管早期超声检查(妊娠<20周)会系统性地将较小胎儿的孕周低估约1 - 2天,但与末次月经日期(LMP)估算孕周所引入的较大误差相比,这种偏差相对较小,这一点从不符合孕周的出生体重数量上可以得到证明。为了描述这种错误分类,我们将加利福尼亚州出生证明上基于LMP的孕周估计值与加利福尼亚州全州扩展甲胎蛋白筛查项目(XAFP)中基于早期超声的孕周估计值进行了比较。最终样本包括165908名女性。按孕周绘制出生体重分布;以超声作为“金标准”计算根据LMP得出的早产率的敏感性和阳性预测值。对于20 - 27周和28 - 31周的孕周,基于LMP的出生体重分布是双峰的,而基于超声的分布是单峰的,但有长长的右尾。在32 - 36周时,与超声分布相比,基于LMP的分布更宽、更平坦且向右偏移。基于LMP与基于超声的估计早产率(<37周)分别为8.7%和7.9%,足月产率(37 - 41周)分别为81.2%和91.0%,过期产率(≥42周)分别为10.1%和1.1%。基于LMP的早产估计的敏感性为64.3%,阳性预测值为58.7%。总体而言,17.2%的记录其估计值的绝对差值>14天。最有可能出现孕周估计不一致的群体包括非裔美国人和西班牙裔女性、年轻且受教育程度较低的女性,以及在怀孕第二个月后才开始产前护理的女性。总之,我们发现基于LMP的孕周存在大量错误分类。2003年修订的美国标准出生证明包括一个新的孕周项目,即产科估计值。评估这个估计值是否解决了基于LMP的孕周所存在的问题将很重要。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验