Rosenberg Rebecca E, Ahmed A S M Nawshad U, Ahmed Saifuddin, Saha Samir K, Chowdhury M A K Azad, Black Robert E, Santosham Mathuram, Darmstadt Gary L
Department of International Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
J Health Popul Nutr. 2009 Jun;27(3):332-8. doi: 10.3329/jhpn.v27i3.3375.
The validity of three methods (last menstrual period [LPM], Ballard and Dubowitz scores) for assessment of gestational age for premature infants in a low-resource setting was assessed, using antenatal ultrasound as the gold standard. It was hypothesized that LMP and other methods would perform similarly in determining postnatal gestational age. Concordance analysis was applied to data on 355 neonates of <33 weeks gestational age enrolled in a topical skin-therapy trial in a tertiary-care children's hospital in Bangladesh. The concordance coefficient for LMP, Ballard, and Dubowitz was 0.878, 0.914, and 0.886 respectively. LMP and Ballard underestimated gestational age by one day (+/-11) and 2.9 days (+/-7.8) respectively while Dubowitz overestimated gestational age by 3.9 days (+/-7.1) compared to ultrasound finding. LMP in a low-resource setting was a more reliable measure of gestational age than previously thought for estimation of postnatal gestational age of preterm infants. Ballard and Dubowitz scores are slightly more reliable but require more technical skills to perform. Additional prospective trials are warranted to examine LMP against antenatal ultrasound for primary assessment of neonatal gestational age in other low-resource settings.
以产前超声作为金标准,评估了三种用于低资源环境下早产儿胎龄评估的方法(末次月经日期[LMP]、巴拉德评分和杜波维茨评分)的有效性。研究假设LMP和其他方法在确定出生后胎龄方面表现相似。对孟加拉国一家三级儿童医院一项局部皮肤治疗试验中纳入的355名孕周<33周的新生儿数据进行了一致性分析。LMP、巴拉德评分和杜波维茨评分的一致性系数分别为0.878、0.914和0.886。与超声检查结果相比,LMP和巴拉德评分分别低估胎龄1天(±11)和2.9天(±7.8),而杜波维茨评分高估胎龄3.9天(±7.1)。在低资源环境下,LMP对于估计早产儿出生后胎龄而言是比之前认为的更可靠的胎龄测量方法。巴拉德评分和杜波维茨评分稍更可靠,但实施需要更多技术技能。有必要进行更多前瞻性试验,以在其他低资源环境下将LMP与产前超声进行对比,用于新生儿胎龄的初步评估。