Pregnancy Length Measurement Error: A comparison of Last Menstrual Period and Ultrasonography with Ovulation-Based Estimation.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Ginna L Doss, Julie L Daniels, Sunni L Mumford, Charles Poole, Anne Z Steiner, Enrique F Schisterman, Robert M Silver, Michelle R Klawans, Anne Marie Z Jukic
{"title":"Pregnancy Length Measurement Error: A comparison of Last Menstrual Period and Ultrasonography with Ovulation-Based Estimation.","authors":"Ginna L Doss, Julie L Daniels, Sunni L Mumford, Charles Poole, Anne Z Steiner, Enrique F Schisterman, Robert M Silver, Michelle R Klawans, Anne Marie Z Jukic","doi":"10.1097/EDE.0000000000001918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Last menstrual period (LMP) and ultrasound are commonly used to estimate pregnancy length. Ovulation, which precedes fertilization by ≤24 hours, should give a more accurate estimate.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Effects of Aspirin in Gestation and Reproduction (EAGeR) trial preconceptionally enrolled participants from four US medical centers from 2006-2012. Participants in our analyses delivered a singleton live birth, had prospectively recorded LMP, ovulation detected by fertility monitor, and early first-trimester crown-rump length measurements. We estimated pregnancy length, preterm birth (<37 weeks) prevalence, and sex-specific size for gestational age by LMP, ultrasound, and ovulation. We report sensitivity and specificity of LMP and ultrasound for detecting preterm birth compared to our gold standard, ovulation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our analytic sample (n=392), pregnancies were longest, preterm birth least common (prevalence = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.10), and small for gestational age most common when measured by LMP. Pregnancies were shortest, preterm birth most common (prevalence = 0.10 (95% CI: 0.07,0.13), and small for gestational age least common when measured by ultrasound. The prevalence of preterm birth was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.12) by ovulation. Using ovulation as the gold standard measure, LMP was less sensitive in detecting preterm birth (0.76, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.90) than ultrasound (0.94, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.00). The specificity of LMP was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.00), and the specificity of ultrasound was 0.97 (95%CI: 0.96, 0.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While this study's pregnancy length information is best-case scenario, we observed misclassification of outcomes that may inform future bias analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":11779,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001918","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Last menstrual period (LMP) and ultrasound are commonly used to estimate pregnancy length. Ovulation, which precedes fertilization by ≤24 hours, should give a more accurate estimate.

Methods: The Effects of Aspirin in Gestation and Reproduction (EAGeR) trial preconceptionally enrolled participants from four US medical centers from 2006-2012. Participants in our analyses delivered a singleton live birth, had prospectively recorded LMP, ovulation detected by fertility monitor, and early first-trimester crown-rump length measurements. We estimated pregnancy length, preterm birth (<37 weeks) prevalence, and sex-specific size for gestational age by LMP, ultrasound, and ovulation. We report sensitivity and specificity of LMP and ultrasound for detecting preterm birth compared to our gold standard, ovulation.

Results: In our analytic sample (n=392), pregnancies were longest, preterm birth least common (prevalence = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.10), and small for gestational age most common when measured by LMP. Pregnancies were shortest, preterm birth most common (prevalence = 0.10 (95% CI: 0.07,0.13), and small for gestational age least common when measured by ultrasound. The prevalence of preterm birth was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.12) by ovulation. Using ovulation as the gold standard measure, LMP was less sensitive in detecting preterm birth (0.76, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.90) than ultrasound (0.94, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.00). The specificity of LMP was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.00), and the specificity of ultrasound was 0.97 (95%CI: 0.96, 0.99).

Conclusion: While this study's pregnancy length information is best-case scenario, we observed misclassification of outcomes that may inform future bias analyses.

妊娠长度测量误差:最后一次月经和超声与基于排卵的估计的比较。
背景:末次月经(LMP)和超声常用于估计妊娠期。排卵在受精前≤24小时,应该能给出更准确的估计。方法:阿司匹林对妊娠和生殖的影响(EAGeR)试验预先招募了2006-2012年美国四个医疗中心的参与者。在我们的分析中,参与者生产了一个单胎活产,前瞻性地记录了LMP,通过生育监测仪检测排卵,并在妊娠早期测量了冠臀长度。我们估计了妊娠长度和早产(结果:在我们的分析样本(n=392)中,妊娠时间最长,早产最不常见(患病率= 0.07,95% CI: 0.04, 0.10),用LMP测量时,最小胎龄最常见。妊娠期最短,早产最常见(患病率= 0.10 (95% CI: 0.07,0.13)),超声测量时最小胎龄。排卵导致早产的发生率为0.08 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.12)。以排卵为金标准,LMP检测早产的敏感性(0.76,95% CI: 0.61, 0.90)低于超声(0.94,95% CI: 0.86, 1.00)。LMP特异性为1.00 (95%CI: 0.99, 1.00),超声特异性为0.97 (95%CI: 0.96, 0.99)。结论:虽然本研究的妊娠长度信息是最好的情况,但我们观察到结果的错误分类可能会为未来的偏倚分析提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Epidemiology
Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
177
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Epidemiology publishes original research from all fields of epidemiology. The journal also welcomes review articles and meta-analyses, novel hypotheses, descriptions and applications of new methods, and discussions of research theory or public health policy. We give special consideration to papers from developing countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信