Olsen O, Clausen J A
H:S Rigshospitalet, Det Nordiske Cochrane Center.
Ugeskr Laeger. 1998 Mar 30;160(14):2088-90.
It has been claimed that the expected day of delivery (EDD) determined on the basis of an ultrasound scan is more accurate than using a calendar method. The aim of this paper is to assess the evidence in support of this claim. A critical review of the methodologically best research revealed that among women with regular cycles and know first day of the last menstrual period, Naegele's rule predicted the EDD to be 3.3 days too early, on average, whereas prediction based on ultrasound scans was 2.0 days too late. The standard deviations of the two distributions were the same. After correction for the systematic biases, the two methods of prediction were thus equally precise. It is concluded that the EDD should be calculated by adding 283 days to the date of the last period rather than by adding 280 days. For women with regular cycles and known first day of the last menstrual period, ultrasound dating does not lead to a more precise prediction.
有人声称,基于超声扫描确定的预计分娩日期(EDD)比使用日历法更准确。本文的目的是评估支持这一说法的证据。对方法学上最佳研究的批判性回顾显示,在月经周期规律且知道末次月经第一天的女性中,纳格勒法则预测的EDD平均早了3.3天,而基于超声扫描的预测则晚了2.0天。两种分布的标准差相同。在对系统偏差进行校正后,两种预测方法的精确度相同。结论是,EDD应通过在末次月经日期上加283天来计算,而不是加280天。对于月经周期规律且知道末次月经第一天的女性,超声测孕并不会带来更精确的预测。