Utilization of third-trimester fetal transcerebellar diameter measurement for gestational age estimation: a comparative study using Bland-Altman analysis

Delayehu Bekele MD, MPH , Wondimu Gudu MD, MPH , Mekitie Wondafrash MD, PhD , Abdulfetah Abdulkadir Abdosh MD , Abraham Fessehaye Sium MD
{"title":"Utilization of third-trimester fetal transcerebellar diameter measurement for gestational age estimation: a comparative study using Bland-Altman analysis","authors":"Delayehu Bekele MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Wondimu Gudu MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Mekitie Wondafrash MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Abdulfetah Abdulkadir Abdosh MD ,&nbsp;Abraham Fessehaye Sium MD","doi":"10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>BACKGROUND</h3><p>Several studies show that gestational age estimation during the third trimester of pregnancy using fetal transcerebellar diameter is superior to that measured using fetal biometry (biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur diaphysis length). However, the conclusion of the studies stemmed from findings of correlation and regression statistical tests, which are not the recommended statistical analysis methods for comparing the values of 1 variable as measured by 2 different methods.</p></div><div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><p>This study aimed to compare the accuracy of gestational age estimation using transcerebellar diameter to that using fetal biometry during the third trimester of pregnancy using Bland-Altman statistical analysis.</p></div><div><h3>STUDY DESIGN</h3><p>This was a cross-sectional study on pregnant women who presented for routine antenatal care follow-up in the third trimester of pregnancy (28–41 weeks of gestation) at St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College (Ethiopia) between November 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. Data were collected prospectively using a structured questionnaire on the Open Data Kit. The primary outcome of our study was the mean bias of gestational age estimation (error in estimating gestational age) using transcerebellar diameter and composite fetal biometry (composite gestational age). Data were analyzed using Stata (version 15; StataCorp, College Station, TX). Simple descriptive analysis, Bland-Altman analysis, and the Kendall τa discordance measurement were performed as appropriate. The mean bias (error) and limits of agreement were used to present the significance of the finding.</p></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><p>A total of 104 pregnant women in the third trimester were included in the study. The mean error (bias) when transcerebellar diameter was used to estimate the gestational age was 0.65 weeks vs a bias of 1.1 weeks using composite biometry, compared with the gold standard method from crown-lump length (in both cases). The calculated estimated limit of agreement was narrower in the case of transcerebellar diameter than in the case of composite fetal biometry (−3.56 to 2.25 vs −4.73 to 2.53). The Kendall τa discordance measurement revealed that gestational age estimations using composite biometry and crown-lump length were 51% to 70%, respectively, more likely to agree than disagree and that gestational age estimations using transcerebellar diameter and crown-lump length were 62% to 77%, respectively, more likely to agree than to disagree (<em>P</em>≤.001).</p></div><div><h3>CONCLUSION</h3><p>Gestational age estimation using transcerebellar diameter is more accurate than gestational age estimation using composite gestational age (biparietal diameter, head circumference, femur diaphysis length, and abdominal circumference). Transcerebellar diameter should be used to date third-trimester pregnancies with unknown gestational age (unknown last normal menstrual period with no early ultrasound milestone).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72141,"journal":{"name":"AJOG global reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666577824000017/pdfft?md5=f49c8e6485c206fdf577df381d52b12e&pid=1-s2.0-S2666577824000017-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOG global reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666577824000017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Several studies show that gestational age estimation during the third trimester of pregnancy using fetal transcerebellar diameter is superior to that measured using fetal biometry (biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur diaphysis length). However, the conclusion of the studies stemmed from findings of correlation and regression statistical tests, which are not the recommended statistical analysis methods for comparing the values of 1 variable as measured by 2 different methods.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of gestational age estimation using transcerebellar diameter to that using fetal biometry during the third trimester of pregnancy using Bland-Altman statistical analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study on pregnant women who presented for routine antenatal care follow-up in the third trimester of pregnancy (28–41 weeks of gestation) at St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College (Ethiopia) between November 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. Data were collected prospectively using a structured questionnaire on the Open Data Kit. The primary outcome of our study was the mean bias of gestational age estimation (error in estimating gestational age) using transcerebellar diameter and composite fetal biometry (composite gestational age). Data were analyzed using Stata (version 15; StataCorp, College Station, TX). Simple descriptive analysis, Bland-Altman analysis, and the Kendall τa discordance measurement were performed as appropriate. The mean bias (error) and limits of agreement were used to present the significance of the finding.

RESULTS

A total of 104 pregnant women in the third trimester were included in the study. The mean error (bias) when transcerebellar diameter was used to estimate the gestational age was 0.65 weeks vs a bias of 1.1 weeks using composite biometry, compared with the gold standard method from crown-lump length (in both cases). The calculated estimated limit of agreement was narrower in the case of transcerebellar diameter than in the case of composite fetal biometry (−3.56 to 2.25 vs −4.73 to 2.53). The Kendall τa discordance measurement revealed that gestational age estimations using composite biometry and crown-lump length were 51% to 70%, respectively, more likely to agree than disagree and that gestational age estimations using transcerebellar diameter and crown-lump length were 62% to 77%, respectively, more likely to agree than to disagree (P≤.001).

CONCLUSION

Gestational age estimation using transcerebellar diameter is more accurate than gestational age estimation using composite gestational age (biparietal diameter, head circumference, femur diaphysis length, and abdominal circumference). Transcerebellar diameter should be used to date third-trimester pregnancies with unknown gestational age (unknown last normal menstrual period with no early ultrasound milestone).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用第三孕期胎儿经小脑直径测量法估测胎龄:使用布兰德-阿尔特曼分析法的比较研究
背景多项研究显示,在妊娠三个月时,使用胎儿经小脑直径估计胎龄优于使用胎儿生物测量(双顶径、头围、腹围和股骨干骺端长度)估计胎龄。本研究旨在使用布兰德-阿尔特曼(Bland-Altman)统计分析方法,比较在妊娠三个月内使用小脑横径和胎儿生物测量法估计胎龄的准确性。研究设计这是一项横断面研究,研究对象是2020年11月1日至2021年2月28日期间在圣保罗医院千禧医学院(埃塞俄比亚)接受常规产前护理随访的怀孕三个月(孕28-41周)的孕妇。数据采用开放数据工具包上的结构化问卷进行前瞻性收集。我们研究的主要结果是使用经小脑直径和复合胎儿生物测量(复合胎龄)估算胎龄的平均偏差(估算胎龄的误差)。数据使用 Stata(版本 15;StataCorp,德克萨斯州 College Station)进行分析。根据情况进行了简单描述性分析、Bland-Altman 分析和 Kendall τa 不一致性测量。结果共有 104 名怀孕三个月的孕妇参与了研究。与根据胎冠-胎块长度的金标准方法(两种情况)相比,使用经小脑直径估计胎龄的平均误差(偏差)为 0.65 周,而使用复合生物测量法的偏差为 1.1 周。经小脑直径法计算的估计一致限(-3.56-2.25 vs -4.73-2.53)比综合胎儿生物测量法要窄(-3.56-2.25 vs -4.73-2.53)。Kendall τa不一致性测量显示,使用复合胎儿生物测量和胎冠-胎块长度估计胎龄时,同意的可能性分别为51%至70%,而不同意的可能性较高;使用经小脑直径和胎冠-胎块长度估计胎龄时,同意的可能性分别为62%至77%,而不同意的可能性较高(P≤.001)。结论与使用复合胎龄(双顶径、头围、股骨干骺端长度和腹围)估计胎龄相比,使用经小脑直径估计胎龄更准确。对于胎龄未知的第三孕期孕妇(末次正常月经时间未知且无早期超声波里程碑),应使用横小脑直径来确定胎龄。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJOG global reports
AJOG global reports Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Perinatology, Pediatrics and Child Health, Urology
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Acute Sheehan syndrome following massive postpartum hemorrhage due to vulvar hematoma The role of the RHOA/ROCK pathway in the regulation of myometrial stages throughout pregnancy Thoughts and opinions about fertility preservation and family building from the transgender community—an interview-based approach Guillain-Barré syndrome in pregnancy: a case report and review of the literature Using machine learning to predict the risk of developing hypertensive disorders of pregnancy using a contemporary nulliparous cohort
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1