Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study

Abstract To assess associations between discrepancy of pregnancy dating methods and adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for discrepancy categories among all singleton births from the Medical Birth Register (1995–20...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Merit Kullinger, Michaela Granfors, Helle Kieler, Alkistis Skalkidou
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2018
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/868fd5a59ad74c1c9bcfd2703bd7d839
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:868fd5a59ad74c1c9bcfd2703bd7d839
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:868fd5a59ad74c1c9bcfd2703bd7d8392021-12-02T12:33:00ZDiscrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study10.1038/s41598-018-24894-y2045-2322https://doaj.org/article/868fd5a59ad74c1c9bcfd2703bd7d8392018-05-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-24894-yhttps://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract To assess associations between discrepancy of pregnancy dating methods and adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for discrepancy categories among all singleton births from the Medical Birth Register (1995–2010) with estimated date of delivery (EDD) by last menstrual period (LMP) minus EDD by ultrasound (US) −20 to +20 days. Negative/positive discrepancy was a fetus smaller/larger than expected when dated by US (EDD postponed/changed to an earlier date). Large discrepancy was <10th or >90th percentile. Reference was median discrepancy ±2 days. Odds for diabetes and preeclampsia were higher in pregnancies with negative discrepancy, and for most delivery outcomes in case of large positive discrepancy (+9 to +20 days): shoulder dystocia [OR 1.16 (95% CI 1.01–1.33)] and sphincter injuries [OR 1.13 (95% CI 1.09–1.17)]. Odds for adverse neonatal outcomes were higher in large negative discrepancy (−4 to −20 days): low Apgar score [OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.09–1.27)], asphyxia [OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.11–1.25)], fetal death [OR 1.47 (95% CI 1.32–1.64)], and neonatal death [OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.91–2.50)]. In conclusion, especially, large negative discrepancy was associated with increased risks of adverse perinatal outcomes.Merit KullingerMichaela GranforsHelle KielerAlkistis SkalkidouNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 8, Iss 1, Pp 1-7 (2018)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Merit Kullinger Michaela Granfors Helle Kieler Alkistis Skalkidou Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study
description	Abstract To assess associations between discrepancy of pregnancy dating methods and adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for discrepancy categories among all singleton births from the Medical Birth Register (1995–2010) with estimated date of delivery (EDD) by last menstrual period (LMP) minus EDD by ultrasound (US) −20 to +20 days. Negative/positive discrepancy was a fetus smaller/larger than expected when dated by US (EDD postponed/changed to an earlier date). Large discrepancy was <10th or >90th percentile. Reference was median discrepancy ±2 days. Odds for diabetes and preeclampsia were higher in pregnancies with negative discrepancy, and for most delivery outcomes in case of large positive discrepancy (+9 to +20 days): shoulder dystocia [OR 1.16 (95% CI 1.01–1.33)] and sphincter injuries [OR 1.13 (95% CI 1.09–1.17)]. Odds for adverse neonatal outcomes were higher in large negative discrepancy (−4 to −20 days): low Apgar score [OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.09–1.27)], asphyxia [OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.11–1.25)], fetal death [OR 1.47 (95% CI 1.32–1.64)], and neonatal death [OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.91–2.50)]. In conclusion, especially, large negative discrepancy was associated with increased risks of adverse perinatal outcomes.
format	article
author	Merit Kullinger Michaela Granfors Helle Kieler Alkistis Skalkidou
author_facet	Merit Kullinger Michaela Granfors Helle Kieler Alkistis Skalkidou
author_sort	Merit Kullinger
title	Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study
title_short	Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study
title_full	Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study
title_fullStr	Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study
title_full_unstemmed	Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study
title_sort	discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2018
url	https://doaj.org/article/868fd5a59ad74c1c9bcfd2703bd7d839
work_keys_str_mv	AT meritkullinger discrepancybetweenpregnancydatingmethodsaffectsobstetricandneonataloutcomesapopulationbasedregistercohortstudy AT michaelagranfors discrepancybetweenpregnancydatingmethodsaffectsobstetricandneonataloutcomesapopulationbasedregistercohortstudy AT hellekieler discrepancybetweenpregnancydatingmethodsaffectsobstetricandneonataloutcomesapopulationbasedregistercohortstudy AT alkistisskalkidou discrepancybetweenpregnancydatingmethodsaffectsobstetricandneonataloutcomesapopulationbasedregistercohortstudy
_version_	1718393869934002176

Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register cohort study

Ejemplares similares