A comparison of first trimester measurements for prediction of delivery date

References

• Treloar AE, Behn BG, Cowan DW. Analysis of gestational interval. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1967;99:34–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell S, Warsof S, Little D, Cooper DJ. Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 1985;65:613–620.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldenström U, Axelsson O, Nilsson S. A comparison of the ability of a sonographically measured biparietal diameter and the last menstrual period to predict the spontaneous onset of labour. Obstet Gynecol 1990;98:108–109.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell S. The prediction of fetal maturity by ultrasonic measurement of the biparietal diameter. J Obstet Gynecol Br Commonw 1969;76:603–609.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health, commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Antenatal care: routine care for the healthy pregnant woman. Internet. 2008. Electronic Citation. www.nice.org.uk/pdf/CG062NICEguideline.pdf. Last accessed March 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Grange G, Pannier E, Goffinet F, Cabrol D, Zorn JR. Dating biometry during the first trimester: accuracy of an every-day practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000;88:61–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz PM, England LJ, Callaghan WM, Pearl M, Wier ML, Kharrazi M. A comparison of LMP-based and ultrasound-based estimates of gestational age using linked California livebirth and prenatal screening records. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21:62–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haglund B. Birthweight distributions by gestational age: comparison of LMP-based and ultrasound-based estimates of gestational age using data from the Swedish Birth Registry. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007;21(Suppl 2):72–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisser J, Dirschedl P, Krone S. Estimation of gestational age by transvaginal sonographic measurement of greatest embryonic length in dated human embryos. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994;4:457–462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geirsson RT, Have G. Comparison of actual and ultrasound estimated second trimester gestational length in in-vitro fertilized pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993;72:344–346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tunón K, Eik-Nes SH, Grøttum P, Von Düring V, Kahn JA. Gestational age in pregnancies conceived after in vitro fertilization: a comparison between age assessed from oocyte retrieval, crown-rump length and biparietal diameter. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;15:41–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wennerholm U-B, Berg C, Hagberg H, Sultan B, Wennergren M. Gestational age in pregnancies after in vitro fertilization: comparison between ultrasound measurements and actual age. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;12:170–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson HP, Fleming JE. A critical evaluation of sonar ‘crown-rump length’ measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1975;82:702–710.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Comité National Technique de l'Echographie de Dépistage Prénatal, Report from the National Technic Commitee for Prenatal Ultrasound Screening. Internet. 2009. Electronic Citation. http://www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/actu/sureau_henrion/rapport.pdf. Last accessed March 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Nicolaides K. The 11–13 + 6 weeks scan. Fetal Medicine Foundation. Internet. 2004. Electronic Citation. http://www.studiolift.com/fetal/site/FMF-English.pdf. Last accessed March 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Royston P, Wright EM. How to construct ‘normal ranges' for fetal variables. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998;11:30–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman DG, Chitty LS. Charts of fetal size: 1. Methodology. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101:29–34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Altman DG, Chitty LS. New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy [Review]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10:174–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sladkevicius P, Saltvedt S, Almström H, Kublickas M, Grunewald C, Valentin L. Ultrasound dating at 12–14 weeks of gestation. A prospective cross-validation of established dating formulae in in-vitro fertilized pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;26:504–511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrington D, MacKenzie I, Thompson K, Fleminger M, Greenwood C. Does a first trimester dating scan using crown rump length measurement reduce the rate of induction of labour for prolonged pregnancy? An uncompleted randomised controlled trial of 463 women. BJOG 2006;113:171–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olesen AW, Thomsen SG. Prediction of delivery date by sonography in the first and second trimesters. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;28:292–297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perni SC, Chervenak FA, Kalish RB, Magherini-Rothe S, Predanic M, Streltzoff J, Skupski DW. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of fetal biometry. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;24:654–658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verburg BO, Mulder PG, Hofman A, Jaddoe VW, Witteman JC, Steegers EA. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility study of early fetal growth parameters. Prenat Diagn 2008;28:323–331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomon LJ, Bernard M, Amarsy R, Bernard JP, Ville Y. The impact of crown rump length measurement error on combined Down syndrome screening. A simulation study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;33:506–511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saltvedt S, Almstrom H, Kublickas M, Reilly M, Valentin L, Grunewald C. Ultrasound dating at 12–14 weeks of gestation. A prospective cross-validation of established dating formulae in in-vitro fertilized pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;26:504–511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bukowski R, Uchida T, Smith GC, Malone FD, Ball RH, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, Hankins GD, Berkowitz RL, Gross SJ, et al FASTER Research Consortium. Fetal growth in early pregnancy and risk of delivering low birth weight infant: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2007;334:836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar