↓ Skip to main content

Validity of gestational age estimates by last menstrual period and neonatal examination compared to ultrasound in Vietnam

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity of gestational age estimates by last menstrual period and neonatal examination compared to ultrasound in Vietnam
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12884-016-1192-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas P. Deputy, Phuong H. Nguyen, Hoa Pham, Son Nguyen, Lynnette Neufeld, Reynaldo Martorell, Usha Ramakrishnan

Abstract

Accurate estimation of gestational age is important for both clinical and public health purposes. Estimates of gestational age using fetal ultrasound measurements are considered most accurate but are frequently unavailable in low- and middle-income countries. The objective of this study was to assess the validity of last menstrual period and Farr neonatal examination estimates of gestational age, compared to ultrasound estimates, in a large cohort of women in Vietnam. Data for this analysis come from a randomized, placebo-controlled micronutrient supplementation trial in Vietnam. We analyzed 912 women with ultrasound and prospectively-collected last menstrual period estimates of gestational age and 685 women with ultrasound and Farr estimates of gestational age. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank sum test to assess differences in gestational age estimated by last menstrual period or Farr examination compared to ultrasound and computed the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) to quantify agreement between methods. We computed the Kappa coefficient (κ) to quantify agreement in preterm, term and post-term classification. The median gestational age estimated by ultrasound was 273.9 days. Gestational age was slightly overestimated by last menstrual period (median 276.0 days, P < 0.001) and more greatly overestimated by Farr examination (median 286.7 days, P < 0.001). Gestational age estimates by last menstrual period and ultrasound were moderately correlated (ICC = 0.78) and concordant (CCC = 0.63), whereas gestational age estimates by Farr examination and ultrasound were weakly correlated (ICC = 0.26) and concordant (CCC = 0.05). Last menstrual period and ultrasound estimates of gestational age were within ± 14 days for 88.4% of women; Farr and ultrasound estimates were within ± 14 days for 55.8% of women. Last menstrual period and ultrasound estimates of gestational age had higher agreement in term classification (κ = 0.41) than Farr and ultrasound (κ = 0.05). In this study of women in Vietnam, we found last menstrual period provided a more accurate estimate of gestational age than the Farr examination when compared to ultrasound. These findings provide useful information about the utility and accuracy of different methods to estimate gestational age and suggest last menstrual period may be preferred over Farr examination in settings where ultrasound is unavailable. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov as NCT01665378 on August 13, 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 40 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 50 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,616,159
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#3,477
of 4,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#300,825
of 426,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#61
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.