Comparison of pregnancy dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, and their combination
Abstract
Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of algorithms for the assignment of gestational age with the use of the last menstrual period and early ultrasound information. Study design Gestational age estimates that are based on last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, or their combination were compared among women who attended prenatal care clinics in central North Carolina (n = 3655) by an evaluation of digit preference in the last menstrual period dates and a comparison of mean gestational age, preterm and postterm categories with the use of kappa statistics, difference between actual and expected delivery date, and birth weight among subgroups with discrepant assignments. Results Last menstrual period reports show digit preference, assign gestation 2.8 days longer on average than ultrasound scanning, yield substantially more postterm births (12.1% vs 3.4%), and predict delivery among term births less accurately. Misclassification of births as postterm was more common in younger women, those of nonoptimal prepregnancy body weight, cigarette smokers, and women who reported last menstrual period using preferred dates of the month. Conclusion Last menstrual period estimates of the duration of gestation are subject to both random error and a systematic tendency to overstate the duration of gestation, most likely because of delayed ovulation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
When the algorithm using crown-rump length with a difference of more than 7 days from the last menstrual period was followed, the number of deliveries within one week from the estimated date was higher compared to that using the last menstrual period (57.1% vs. 48.1%).
“Moreover, when the algorithm using the CRL measurement, with a difference of more than 7 days from the LMP, was followed, the number of deliveries within one week from the estimated date was higher compared to that using the LMP (57.1% vs. 48.1%) [22].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
Determination of gestational age by last menstrual period resulted in more post-term deliveries compared to crown-rump length when it differed from the last menstrual period by more than 7 days.
“According to results from a study of 3655 women, determination of gestational age by the LMP resulted in more post-term deliveries compared to the CRL (when it differed from the LMP by more than 7 days) [22].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Committee Opinion No. 700: Methods for estimating the due date
(2017) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002046 · Cited by 683 · see citing works
<scp>ISUOG</scp> Practice Guidelines: performance of first‐trimester fetal ultrasound scan
(2013) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.12342 · Cited by 621 · see citing works
The risk of intrauterine fetal death in the small-for-gestational-age fetus
Pilliod, R. A., Cheng, Y. W., Snowden, J. M., Doss, A. E., & Caughey, A. B. (2012) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.039 · Cited by 201 · see citing works
Incongruence between test statistics and P values in medical papers
García-Berthou, E., & Alcaraz, C. (2004) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-4-13 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Ultrasound‐based gestational‐age estimation in late pregnancy
Papageorghiou, A. T., Kemp, B., Stones, W., Ohuma, E. O., Kennedy, S. H., Purwar, M., Salomon, L. J., Altman, D. G., Noble, J. A., Bertino, E., et al. (2016) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.15894 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Erichsen, H. C., Engel, S. A. M., Eck, P. K., Welch, R., Yeager, M., Levine, M., Siega-Riz, A. M., Olshan, A. F., & Chanock, S. J. (2006) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwj035 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Self-citationMachine learning for accurate estimation of fetal gestational age based on ultrasound images
Lee, L. H., Bradburn, E., Craik, R., Yaqub, M., Norris, S. A., Ismail, L. C., Ohuma, E. O., Barros, F. C., Lambert, A., Carvalho, M., et al. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00774-2 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Rijken, M. J., Mulder, E. J. H., Papageorghiou, A. T., Thiptharakun, S., Wah, N., Paw, T. K., Dwell, S. L. M., Visser, G. H. A., Nosten, F. H., & McGready, R. (2012) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.11091 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines
Boureka, E., Tsakiridis, I., Michos, G., Liberis, A., Giouleka, S., Mamopoulos, A., Kalogiannidis, I., & Dagklis, T. (2026) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics16111695
- Authors
- Savitz, D. A., Terry, J. W., Dole, N., Thorp, J. M., Siega-Riz, A. M., & Herring, A. H.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 187
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1660-1666
- ISSN
- 0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2083854981
- Cited by
- 437
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 31
- FWCI
- 11.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5r01da009096-08)
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U64/CCU 412273)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA09096)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD28684, R01HD028684)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Keywords
- gestational age estimation, last menstrual period, ultrasound dating, digit preference, post-term birth, preterm birth, birth weight, delayed ovulation, cigarette smoking, prenatal care
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Body Weight, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Menstruation, Pregnancy, Sensitivity and Specificity, Smoking, Time Factors, Ultrasonography, Prenatal
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