ArticleJournal of ultrasound2024
Problems with gestational age estimation by last menstrual period and ultrasound among late antenatal care attendant women in a low-resource setting in Africa, Sudan.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Letter to the editor regarding 'does point-of-care ultrasound examination by the general practitioner lead to inappropriate care? A follow-up study'.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate estimation of gestational age is essential to interpret and manage several maternal and perinatal indicators. Last menstrual period (LMP) and ultrasound are the two most common methods used for estimating gestational age. There are few published studies comparing the use of LMP and ultrasound in Sub-Saharan Africa to estimate gestational age and no studies on this topic in Sudan. MATERIAL AND
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in Gadarif Maternity Hospital in Sudan during November through December 2022. Sociodemographic information was collected, and the date of the first day of each participant's LMP was recorded. Ultrasound examinations were performed (measuring crown-rump length in early pregnancy and biparietal diameter and femur length in late pregnancy) using a 3.5-MHz electronic convex sector probe. Bland-Altman analysis was performed.
resultsFour-hundred seventy-six pregnant women were enrolled. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age and gravidity was 24.0 (20.0‒29.0) years and 2 (1‒4), respectively. There was a strong positive correlation between gestational age determined by LMP and ultrasound (r = 0.921, P < 0.001). The mean gestational age estimate according to LMP was higher than that determined by ultrasound, with a difference, on average, of 0.01 week (95% confidence interval [CI]: - 0.05, 0.07). Bland-Altman analysis showed the limits of agreement varied from - 1.36 to 1.38 weeks. A linear regression analysis showed proportional bias. The coefficient of difference of the mean was equal to 0.26 (95% CI: 0.01, 0.03, P < 0.001).
conclusionBased on our results, there was a bias in LMP-based gestational age estimates when compared with the reproducible method (ultrasound).
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.