The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predicting delivery date by ultrasound and last menstrual period in early gestation
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare last menstrual period and ultrasonography in predicting delivery date. METHODS: We used ultrasound to scan 17,221 nonselected singleton pregnancies at 8-16 completed weeks. The last menstrual period (LMP) was considered certain in 13,541 and uncertain in 3680 cases. The duration of pregnancy from the scan to the day of spontaneous delivery was predicted by crown-rump length, biparietal diameter (BPD), and femur length (FL) using linear regression models, and the results were compared with estimates based on LMP. RESULTS: At all gestational ages, ultrasound was superior to certain LMP in predicting the day of delivery by at least 1.7 days. When deliveries before 37 weeks were excluded, crown-rump length measurement of 15-60 mm (corresponding to 8-12.5 weeks) had the lowest prediction error of 7.3 days. After that time, BPD (at least 21 mm) showed a similar error (7.3 days) and was more precise than crown-rump length. Femur length was slightly less accurate than crown-rump length or BPD. Regression models using a combination of any two or three ultrasonic variables did not improve accuracy of prediction. When ultrasound was used instead of certain LMP, the number of postterm pregnancies decreased from 10.3% to 2.7% (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound was more accurate than LMP in dating, and when it was used the number of postterm pregnancies decreased. Crown-rump length of 15-60 mm was superior to BPD, but then BPD (at least 21 mm) was more precise. Combining more than one ultrasonic measurements did not improve dating accuracy.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This is based on a study that showed that the prediction error of CRL between 8 and 16 weeks was 7.7 days, while the error by LMP was a little more than 10 days; therefore, the CRL is considered a more accurate method [21].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“This is based on a study that showed that the prediction error of CRL between 8 and 16 weeks was 7.7 days, while the error by LMP was a little more than 10 days; therefore, the CRL is considered a more accurate method [21].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
Citations
Cites
Snijders, R., Noble, P., Sebire, N., Souka, A., & Nicolaides, K. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)11280-6 · Cited by 1,572
ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENT OF FETAL ABDOMEN CIRCUMFERENCE IN THE ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT
Campbell, S. C., & Wilkin, D. (1975) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1975.tb00708.x · Cited by 541
Saari‐Kemppainen, A., Karjalainen, O., Ylöstalo, P., & Heinonen, O. P. (1990) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(90)91941-3 · Cited by 356
Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age.
Campbell, S. C., Warsof, S. L., Little, D. J., & Cooper, D. J. (1985) · PubMed · Cited by 262
Estimating the date of confinement: Ultrasonographic biometry versus certain menstrual dates
Mongelli, M., Wilcox, M., & Gardosi, J. O. (1996) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70408-8 · Cited by 243
Whitlow, B., Chatzipapas, I., Lazanakis, M., Kadir, R. A., & Economides, D. L. (1999) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08432.x · Cited by 224
US Public Health Service sets out plan for xenotransplantation
Hobbs, M. N. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)23005-4 · Cited by 196
Increased Nuchal Translucency as a Marker for Fetal Chromosomal Defects
Taipale, P., Hiilesmaa, V. K., Salonen, R., & Ylöstalo, P. (1997) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199712043372303 · Cited by 196
Self-citationTunón, K., Eik‐Nes, S. H., & Grøttum, P. (1996) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1996.08030178.x · Cited by 160
Diagnostic ultrasound applied to obstetrics and gynecology
Sabbagha, R. E. (1980) · Medical Dept., Harper & Row eBooks · Cited by 122
Ultrasound Screening and Perinatal Mortality
SAARI-KEMPPAINEN, A., KARJALAINEN, O., Ylöstalo, P., & HEINONEN, O. P. (1991) · Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey · doi:10.1097/00006254-199107000-00004 · Cited by 119
Accuracy of gestational age estimation by means of fetal crown-rump length measurement
Daya, S. (1993) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(12)90842-x · Cited by 114
Duration Of Human Singleton Pregnancy: A Population‐based Study
Bergsjø, P., Denman, D. W., Hoffman, H. J., & Meirik, O. (1990) · Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.3109/00016349009028681 · Cited by 109
Benson, C. B., & Doubilet, P. M. (1991) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.157.6.1950881 · Cited by 108
Long-term experience of general ultrasound screening in pregnancy
Persson, P., & Kullander, S. (1983) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/0002-9378(83)90970-5 · Cited by 98
Underestimation of Gestational Age by Conventional Crown-Rump Length Dating Curves
MacGregor, S. N., Tamura, R. K., Sabbagha, R. E., Minogue, J. P., Me, G., & Di, H. (1987) · Journal of diagnostic medical sonography · doi:10.1177/875647938700300629 · Cited by 78
Dating of pregnancy: time to forget the last menstrual period
Gardosi, J. O. (1997) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1997.09060367.x · Cited by 72
Nguyen, T. H., Larsen, T., Engholm, G., & Møller, H. (1999) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14010023.x · Cited by 71
Kieler, H., Axelssön, O., Nilsson, S., & Waldenströ, U. (1995) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.06050353.x · Cited by 61
Tunón, K., Eik‐Nes, S. H., & Grøttum, P. (1999) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14010012.x · Cited by 38
Routine ultrasound dating has not been shown to be more accurate than the calendar method
Olsen, O., & Clausen, J. A. (1997) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb10965.x · Cited by 33
A prospective evaluation of fetal femur length as a predictor of gestational age.
Hadlock, F. P., Harrist, R. B., Deter, R. L., & Park, S. K. (1983) · Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.7863/jum.1983.2.3.111 · Cited by 32
Tunón, K., Eik‐Nes, S. H., & Grøttum, P. (1999) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14010017.x · Cited by 26
Ultrasound dating of pregnancy – still controversial?
Persson, P. (1999) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14010009.x · Cited by 8
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan
Salomon, L. J., Alfirevic, Z., Berghella, V., Bilardo, C., Hernandez‐Andrade, E., Johnsen, S. L., Kalache, K., Leung, K. ‐., Malinger, G., Munoz, H., et al. (2011) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.8831 · Cited by 1,006
Committee Opinion No. 700: Methods for estimating the due date
(2017) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002046 · Cited by 683
ISUOG Practice Guidelines: performance of first‐trimester fetal ultrasound scan
(2013) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.12342 · Cited by 621
Lee, P. A., Chernausek, S. D., Hokken-Koelega, A. C. S., Czernichow, P., & for the International SGA Advisory Board (2003) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.111.6.1253 · Cited by 613
Davidoff, M. J., Dias, T., Damus, K. H., Russell, R., Bettegowda, V. R., Dolan, S. M., Schwarz, R. H., Green, N., & Petrini, J. R. (2006) · Seminars in Perinatology · doi:10.1053/j.semperi.2006.01.009 · Cited by 579
Metadata
- Authors
- Taipale, P.
- Affiliations
- Helsinki University Hospital (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Taipale, P
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 189-194
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2009442978
- Cited by
- 216
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 4.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
- Keywords
- gestational age estimation, last menstrual period, ultrasound dating, crown-rump length, biparietal diameter, femur length, early pregnancy, singleton pregnancy, prolonged pregnancy, prediction error
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Anthropometry, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Menstrual Cycle, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Crown-Rump Length, Delivery, Obstetric
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
