Abstract
Accurate estimation of pregnancy duration is crucially important for the definition of term and preterm birth and informs care provision throughout pregnancy. However, this remains a challenge in many resource-limited context largely because the reliability of recall of the last menstrual period is low, and access to early ultrasound to measure foetal crown-rump length and other foetal biometry is highly limited. This chapter outlines a practical simplified approach to estimating pregnancy duration early following engagement with ANC. This forms the basis of subsequent care provision to correctly identify preterm labour/birth, improve epidemiological data on preterm low birth weight incidence, and enable proper triaging of care and its provision.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Background
An essential component of antenatal care is pregnancy dating, allowing for an accurate estimation of the duration of pregnancy. It is important for identifying the optimum timing of obstetric interventions such as location of birth, delivery mode, and management of foetal growth abnormalities. Accurate pregnancy dating improves the classification of preterm birth (PTB) and enables global PTB rates to be comparable. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the burden of PTB and intrauterine growth restriction is highest [1, 2], pregnancy dating is a challenge: women are often unable to recollect their last menstrual period, and menstrual cycle lengths vary due to short birth intervals and lactation [3, 4]. Clinical palpation to estimate uterine size is often inaccurate and influenced by foetal growth restriction, uterine fibroids, foetal malpresentation (associated with high parity), and maternal obesity. Late presentation for pregnancy registration is common in LMICs making pregnancy dating a challenge.
This guidance details the optimum approach to pregnancy dating utilising the best resources currently available in different contexts and taking into account late presentation.
2 Evidence Statement
Accurate pregnancy dating is important to enable accurate diagnosis of preterm labour and delivery. It varies with the duration of the pregnancy at presentation.
In early pregnancy, a reliable last menstrual period (LMP) should be employed and confirmed by the foetal crown-rump length (CRL) if ultrasound is readily accessible. A discrepancy of more than 1Â week between both modalities should trigger a switch in the confirmed pregnancy duration and expected date of delivery to the ultrasound CRL as this is more reliable.
After the first trimester, foetal biometry using a formula (algorithm that assesses BPD/HC/FL) may be employed if ultrasound is readily available. If ultrasound is not immediately accessible, clinical assessment of the uterine fundal height should be used pending confirmation by ultrasound where possible. Foetal biometric estimation of gestational age at 20–24 weeks’ is further improved if the transcerebellar distance can be employed either singly or with femur length assessment to estimate the duration. Where ultrasound is unavailable, then the symphysiofundal height should be used.
3 Synopsis of Best-Evidenced Pregnancy Dating Methods
3.1 Last Menstrual Period
This is the most widely used method to estimate pregnancy duration. If known with certainty, it offers a good estimation of the baby’s due date and accurate pregnancy dating. However, it may overestimate pregnancy duration by more than 3 days in high-income settings (HICS) [5] and longer in LMICs [6]. It is dependent on the regularity of the menstrual cycle and subjective recall of the first day of the last period.
(Moderate to high certainty of evidence)
3.2 First Trimester Ultrasound
Measurement of the foetal crown-rump length (CRL) is considered to be the gold-standard method for estimating gestational age (up to 14 weeks’ gestation) [5, 7]. Unfortunately, in LMICs, ultrasound early in gestation is often not universally available, and there is the tendency for pregnant women to present late for antenatal care. These issues limit the application of CRL measurement in these settings.
(Moderate to high certainty of evidence)
3.3 Ultrasound Standard Foetal Biometric Measurements at 14 to 20 Weeks’ Gestation
Standard biometric measurements (biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur length) provide an accurate estimation of gestational age (to within ±1–2 weeks of the crown-rump length (CRL) measurement of gestational age) [8].
(Moderate to high certainty of evidence)
3.4 Ultrasound Standard Foetal Biometric Measurements after 20 Weeks’ of Gestation
Standard biometry does not perform as well as it does at less than 20 weeks’ gestation, with accuracy of only ± ≥ 3 weeks of the CRL measurement [7], especially in LMICs where 19·3% of infants are born small for gestational age [2]. Measurement of the cerebellum alone or combined with femur length [9] provides more accurate estimation of gestational age compared with standard biometry measurements [10].
(Moderate to high certainty of evidence)
3.5 Symphysiofundal Height Estimation
In late pregnancy after 20Â weeks, this provides gestational age estimation comparable with the last menstrual period and may be employed against a validated normogram when women present late and menstrual dates are not reliable and access to ultrasound is limited [11].
(Low certainty of evidence)
Figure 1 outlines the pragmatic steps that facilitate estimating pregnancy duration as accurately as possible in low as well as high resource settings, based on careful evaluation of the last menstrual period history, the availability and utilisation of ultrasound, as well as the best ultrasound parameters that should be employed. In limited resource settings where late booking is rife, it highlights the use of clinical estimation of the symphysiofundal height to augment available information about pregnancy duration.
References
Blencowe H, Cousens S, Oestergaard MZ, Chou D, Moller AB, Narwal R, et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. Lancet. 2012;379(9832):216.
Lee AC, Katz J, Blencowe H, Cousens S, Kozuki N, Vogel JP, et al. National and regional estimates of term and preterm babies born small for gestational age in 138 low-income and middle-income countries in 2010. Lancet Glob Health. 2013;1(1):e26–36.
Geirsson RT. Ultrasound instead of last menstrual period as the basis of gestational age assignment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1991;1(3):212–9.
Chiazze L Jr, Brayer FT, Macisco JJ Jr, Parker MP, Duffy BJ. The length and variability of the human menstrual cycle. JAMA. 1968;203(6):377–80.
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):1660–6.
Fulcher I, Hedt K, Marealle S, Tibaijuka J, Abdalla O, Hofmann R, et al. Errors in estimated gestational ages reduce the likelihood of health facility deliveries: results from an observational cohort study in Zanzibar. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):50.
Committee on Obstetric Practice, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine. Committee Opinion No 700: Methods for Estimating the Due Date. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(5):e150–e4.
Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Martinez-Poyer J. How accurate is second trimester fetal dating? J Ultrasound Med. 1991;10(10):557–61.
WHO Alliance for Maternal and Newborn Health Improvement Late Pregnancy Dating Study Group. Performance of late pregnancy biometry for gestational age dating in low-income and middle-income countries: a prospective, multicountry, population-based cohort study from the WHO Alliance for maternal and newborn health improvement (AMANHI) study group. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(4):e545–e54.
Adeyekun AA, Orji MO. Predictive accuracy of Transcerebellar diameter in comparison with other Foetal biometric parameters for gestational age estimation among pregnant Nigerian women. East Afr Med J. 2014;91(4):138–44.
Jehan I, Zaidi S, Rizvi S, Mobeen N, McClure EM, Munoz B, et al. Dating gestational age by last menstrual period, symphysis-fundal height, and ultrasound in urban Pakistan. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;110(3):231–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Anumba, D.O. (2022). Pregnancy Dating Guidance. In: Anumba, D.O., Jayasooriya, S.M. (eds) Evidence Based Global Health Manual for Preterm Birth Risk Assessment . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04462-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04462-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-04461-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-04462-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)