ArticleBMJ open2023
Can the date of last menstrual period be trusted in the first trimester? Comparisons of gestational age measures from a prospective cohort study in six low-income to middle-income countries.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01073475 (Global Network for Women's and Children's Health Research Maternal Newborn Health Registry), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Global Network for Women's and Children's Health Research Maternal Newborn Health Registry
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of Large-for-Gestational Age and Macrosomia Among Livebirths in 23 Low- and Middle-Income Countries Between 2000 and 2021: An Individual Participant Data Analysis.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 14 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe examined gestational age (GA) estimates for live and still births, and prematurity rates based on last menstrual period (LMP) compared with ultrasonography (USG) among pregnant women at seven sites in six low-resource countries.
designProspective cohort study SETTING AND
participantsThis study included data from the Global Network's population-based Maternal and Newborn Health Registry which follows pregnant women in six low-income and middle-income countries (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Zambia). Participants in this analysis were 42 803 women, including their 43 230 babies, who registered for the study in their first trimester based on GA estimated either by LMP or USG and had a live or stillbirth with an estimated GA of 20-42 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: GA was estimated in weeks and days based on LMP and/or USG. Prematurity was defined as GA of 20 weeks+0 days through 36 weeks+6 days, calculated by both USG and LMP.
resultsOverall, average GA varied ≤1 week between LMP and USG. Mean GA for live births by LMP was lower than by USG (adjusted mean difference (95% CI) = -0.23 (-0.29 to -0.17) weeks). Among stillbirths, a higher GA was estimated by LMP than USG (adjusted mean difference (95% CI)= 0.42 (0.11 to 0.72) weeks). Preterm birth rates for live births were significantly higher when dated by LMP (adjusted rate difference (95% CI)= 4.20 (3.56 to 4.85)). There was no significant difference in preterm birth rates for stillbirths.
conclusionThe small differences in GA for LMP versus USG in the Guatemalan and Indian sites suggest that LMP may be a useful alternative to USG for GA dating during the first trimester until availability of USG improves in those areas. Further research is needed to assess LMP for first-trimester GA dating in other regions with limited access to USG. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01073475.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.