Estimation of gestational age in early pregnancy from crown-rump length when gestational age range is truncated: the case study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Douglas G Altman²  Jose Villar¹  Aris T Papageorghiou¹  Eric O Ohuma² 

[1] Nuffield Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology and Oxford Maternal & Perinatal Health Institute (OMPHI), Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, Level 3 Women's Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK;Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK

关键词: Inversion;    Restriction;    Extrapolation;    Simulation;    Gestational age;    Crown-rump length;    INTERGROWTH-21^st project;    Truncation;   

Others  :  866541
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-13-151

 received in 2013-09-02, accepted in 2013-11-28,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Fetal ultrasound scanning is considered vital for routine antenatal care with first trimester scans recommended for accurate estimation of gestational age (GA). A reliable estimate of gestational age is key information underpinning clinical care and allows estimation of expected date of delivery. Fetal crown-rump length (CRL) is recommended over last menstrual period for estimating GA when measured in early pregnancy i.e. 9⁺⁰-13⁺⁶ weeks.

Methods

The INTERGROWTH-21^st Project is the largest prospective study to collect data on CRL in geographically diverse populations and with a high level of quality control measures in place. We aim to develop a new gestational age estimation equation based on the crown-rump length (CRL) from women recruited between 9⁺⁰-13⁺⁶ weeks. The main statistical challenge is modelling data when the outcome variable (GA) is truncated at both ends, i.e. at 9 and 14 weeks.

We explored three alternative statistical approaches to overcome the truncation of GA. To evaluate these strategies we generated a data set with no truncation of GA that was similar to the INTERGROWTH-21^st Project CRL data, which we used to explore the performance of different methods of analysis of these data when we imposed truncation at 9 and 14 weeks of gestation. These 3 methods were first tested in a simulation based study using a previously published dating equation by Verburg et al. and evaluated how well each of them performed in relation to the model from which the data were generated. After evaluating the 3 approaches using simulated data based on the Verburg equations, the best approach will be applied to the INTERGROWTH-21^st Project data to estimate GA from CRL.

Results

Results of these rather “ad hoc” statistical methods correspond very closely to the “real data” for Verburg, a data set that is similar to the INTERGROWTH-21^st project CRL data set.

Conclusions

We are confident that we can use these approaches to get reliable estimates based on INTERGROWTH-21^st Project CRL data. These approaches may be a solution to other truncation problems involving similar data though their application to other settings would need to be evaluated.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Ohuma et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]ISUOG: Practice guidelines: performance of first-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013, 41(1):102-113.
• [2]Verburg BO, Steegers EAP, De Ridder M, Snijders RJM, Smith E, Hofman A, Moll HA, Jaddoe VWV, Witteman JCM: New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy and assessment of fetal growth: longitudinal data from a population-based cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008, 31(4):388-396.
• [3]Treloar A, Behn BG, Cowan DW: Analysis of gestational interval. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1967, 99:34-45.
• [4]Campbell S: The prediction of fetal maturity by ultrasonic measurement of the biparietal diameter. BJOG 1969, 76(7):603-609.
• [5]Campbell S, Warsof SL, Little D, Cooper DJ: Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 1985, 65(5):613-620.
• [6]Waldenström U, Axelsson O, Nilsson S: A comparison of the ability of a sonographically measured biparietal diameter and the last menstrual period to predict the spontaneous onset of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1990, 76(3 Pt 1):336-338.
• [7]Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; Royal College of Physicians of Ireland; Directorate of Quality and Clinical Care: HSE: Ultrasound diagnosis of early pregnancy miscarriage. Clin Pract Guidel 2010, 4-7. Version 1. Guideline 1
• [8]Haglund B: Birthweight distributions by gestational age: comparison of LMP-based and ultrasound-based estimates of gestational age using data from the Swedish Birth Registry. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007, 21:72-78.
• [9]Grange G, Pannier E, Goffinet F, Cabrol D, Zorn J-R: Dating biometry during the first trimester: accuracy of an every-day practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000, 88(1):61-64.
• [10]Dietz PM, England LJ, Callaghan WM, Pearl M, Wier ML, Kharrazi M: A comparison of LMP-based and ultrasound-based estimates of gestational age using linked California livebirth and prenatal screening records. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007, 21:62-71.
• [11]Ioannou C, Talbot K, Ohuma E, Sarris I, Villar J, Conde-Agudelo A, et al.: Systematic review of methodology used in ultrasound studies aimed at creating charts of fetal size. BJOG 2012, 119(12):1425-1439.
• [12]Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Duyme M, Buvat I, Ville Y: The impact of choice of reference charts and equations on the assessment of fetal biometry. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005, 25(6):559-565.
• [13]Napolitano R, Dhami J, Ohuma E, Loannou C, Conde Agudelo A, Kennedy S, Villar J, Papageorghiou AT: Systematic review of the methodology used for creating dating charts based on fetal crown-rump length. BJOG 2013. Accepted
• [14]Sladkevicius P, Saltvedt S, Almström H, Kublickas M, Grunewald C, Valentin L: Ultrasound dating at 12-14 weeks of gestation. A prospective cross-validation of established dating formulae in in-vitro fertilized pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005, 26(5):504-511.
• [15]Sahota DS, Leung TY, Leung TN, Chan OK, Lau TK: Fetal crown-rump length and estimation of gestational age in an ethnic Chinese population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009, 33(2):157-160.
• [16]Robinson HP, Fleming JEE: A critical evaluation of sonar crown-rump length measurements. BJOG 1975, 82(9):702-710.
• [17]Altman DG, Chitty LS: New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997, 10(3):174-191.
• [18]Multicentre Growth Reference Study WHO: Assessment of differences in linear growth among populations in the WHO multicentre growth reference study. Acta Paediatr 2006, 450:56-65.
• [19]Villar J, Altman DG, Purwar M, Noble JA, Knight HE, Ruyan P, et al.: The objectives, design and implementation of the multicentre, population-based, INTERGROWTH-21st project. BJOG 2013, 120:9-26.
• [20]Altman DG, Chitty LS: Design and analysis of studies to derive charts of fetal size. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993, 3(6):378-384.
• [21]Altman DG, Chitty LS: Charts of fetal size: 1. Methodology. BJOG 1994, 101(1):29-34.
• [22]Royston P, Altman DG: Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: parsimonious parametric modelling. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat 1994, 43(3):429-467.
• [23]Kalish RB, Thaler HT, Chasen ST, Gupta M, Berman SJ, Rosenwaks Z, Chervenak FA: First-and second-trimester ultrasound assessment of gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004, 191(3):975-978.
• [24]Caughey AB, Nicholson JM, Washington AE: First- vs second-trimester ultrasound: the effect on pregnancy dating and perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008, 198(6):e701-e703. e706
• [25]Bennett KA, Crane JMG, O’Shea P, Lacelle J, Hutchens D, Copel JA: First trimester ultrasound screening is effective in reducing postterm labor induction rates: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004, 190(4):1077-1081.
• [26]Royston P, Altman DG: Design and analysis of longitudinal studies of fetal size. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995, 6(5):307-312.
• [27]MacGregor SN, Tamura RK, Sabbagha RE, Minogue JP, Gibson ME, Hoffman DI: Underestimation of gestational age by conventional crown-rump length dating curves. Obstet Gynecol 1987, 70(3 Pt 1):344-348.
• [28]Savitz DA, Terry JW Jr, Dole N, Thorp JM Jr, Siega-Riz AM, Herring AH: Comparison of pregnancy dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, and their combination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002, 187(6):1660-1666.
• [29]Harville EW, Wilcox AJ, Baird DD, Weinberg CR: Vaginal bleeding in very early pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2003, 18(9):1944-1947.
• [30]Bottomley C, Bourne T: Dating and growth in the first trimester. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2009, 23(4):439-452.
• [31]No Author: Vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy. BMJ 1980, 281(6238):470.
• [32]Falco P, Milano V, Pilu G, David C, Grisolia G, Rizzo N, Bovicelli L: Sonography of pregnancies with first-trimester bleeding and a viable embryo: a study of prognostic indicators by logistic regression analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996, 7(3):165-169.
• [33]Taipale P, Hiilesmaa V: Predicting delivery date by ultrasound and last menstrual period in early gestation. Obstet Gynecol 2001, 97(2):189-194.
• [34]Geirsson RT: Ultrasound instead of last menstrual period as the basis of gestational age assignment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1991, 1(3):212-219.