The Study of the Accuracy of Three Methods in Estimation of Delivery Date

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student in Reproductive Health, Shahrood University, Faculty Member of Sabzevar University, Sabzvar, Iran

2 M.Sc. in Biostatistics, Faculty Member of Sabzevar University, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, faculty of hygiene - Sabzevar

Abstract

Introduction: Estimation of delivery date based on last menstrual period and ultrasound is common in prenatal care. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of Naegel’s rule, Naegel’s revised rule and ultrasound in estimation of delivery date.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was done on 540 pregnant women hospitalized in Mobayyeni Hospital in Sabzevar (2007-2008) due sign of to labor. Estimated delivery date was calculated based on three methods and difference between these and ture date of labor calculated. Data was analyzed by descriptive statistical indices, Pearson correlation and T-test using Spss15.
Results: Results showed that delivery happened in 6.3, 6.3 and 6.7 percent of women just on the stimated date by Naegel’s rule, Naegel’s revised rule and ultrasound respectively and delivery happened in 51.9, 67.2 and 60.7 percent of them until the estimated date. The difference between true date and the estimated date by Naegel’s rule and ultrasound were correlated significantly with fundal height and birth weight (p<0.001). Post term delivery rates were 0.4, 1.9 and 0.6 percent respectively, based on ultrasound reports, Naegel’s rule and Naegel’s revised rule.
Conclusion: Naegel’s rule is more accurate in prediction of delivery date, compared to other similar studies. Using ultrasound prolongs the period preceding the beginning of labor. Using Naegel’s revised rule strongly brings better results.

Keywords

References

1. Baskett TF, Nagele F. Naegele's rule: a reappraisal. BJOG 2000 Nov; 107(11):1433­5.
2. Mittendorf R, Williams MA, Berkey CS, Cotter PF. The length of uncomplicated human gestation. Obstet
Gynecol 1990 Jun; 75(6):929­32.
3. Barr WB, Pecci CC. Last menstrual period versus ultrasound for pregnancy dating. Int J Gynecol Obstet
2004 Oct;87(1):38­9.
4. Nichols  C. Dating pregnancy. Gathering and using a reliable data base. J  Nurse Midwifery 1987 Jul­ Aug;32(4):195­204.
5. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Gilstrap III L, Wenstrom KD. Williams obstetrics. 22nd ed. Newyork: McGraw­Hill;2005:61,244­5 .
6. Guyton A C, Hall JE. Textbook of medical physiology. 11th ed. Philadelphia:Elsevier Saunders; 2006:1026.
7. Parikh RM. Parikh’s formula to minimize errors in calculating expected date of delivery. Med Hypotheses 2007; 68(4): 928.
8. Olsen  O , Clausen JA. [ Determination of the expected day of delivery­­ultrasound has not been shown to  be  more  accurate  than  the  calendar method]. [Article  in  German]. Ugeskr Laeger 1998  Mar 30;160(14):2088­90.
9. Olsen  O. Expected day of delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999 Sep;106(9):1000 .
10. Lynch CD, Zhang J. The research implications  of the selection of a  gestational age  estimation method.
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007 Sep;21 Suppl 2:86­96.
11. Firoozabadi R , Botorabi T , Tayebi N. [Determination  of accuracy of ultrasound  and  Naegele’s rule in  predicting of delivery date]. [Article in Persian]. Rafsanjan Med Sci Univ J 2007;6:163­70.
12. Taipale P, Hiilesmaa V. Predicting delivery date by ultrasound and last menstrual period in early gestation. Obstet Gynecol 2001 Feb;97(2):189­94.
13. Saunders N, Paterson C. Can we abandon Naegele's rule?. Lancet 1991 Mar 9;337(8741):600­1.
14. Katz VL, Farmer R, Tufariello J, Carpenter M. Why we should eliminate the due date: a truth in jest. Obstet Gynecol 2001 Dec;98(6):1127­9.
15. Shagufta SS , Rana S. Critical evaluation of naegele’s rule and the  concept of term. FIGO World Congr Gynecol Obstet 2006 Nov;137.
16. Nguyen T, Larsen T, Engholm G, Møller H. Evaluation of ultrasound­estimated date of delivery in 17,450 
spontaneous singleton births: do we need to modify Naegele’s rule?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999 
Jul;14 (1): 23­8.
The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility
Volume 13, Issue 5 - Serial Number 5
November 2010
Pages 45-51

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics