Iranian Society of Gynecology Oncology

Document Type : Original Research Article


1 Endometriosis Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran

3 Department of Community Medicine, School of Medicine, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran

4 Air Pollution Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

5 Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran

6 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran


Background & Objective: Determining the correct date of pregnancy and fetal age has a very important role in the management of pregnancy from the first trimester to delivery, which makes it necessary to know the exact method in this field. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the accuracy of ultrasound at 8-16 weeks with Naegele’s Revised Rule of the delivery date.
Materials & Methods: This study was performed on 50 pregnant women. After recording demographic information and age of delivery, sonography of weeks 8-16 and Naegel’s Revised Rule were also recorded. A Paired t-test was used to compare data.
Results: The results of our study showed that the average difference between the Naegele’s Revised Rule and real age was 3.52 days, which is a significant difference. However, the average difference between the estimated date by ultrasound and real age is 0.58 days, which is not a significant difference. Ultrasound is more accurate than the Naegele’s Revised Rule, which still did not differ significantly from the actual date of delivery by grouping by age, sex of the fetus, number of pregnancies, and deliveries.
Conclusion: Ultrasound has more accuracy in accurately estimating the date of delivery, and therefore using this method and relying on it has more reliability than the Naegele’s Revised Rule.


Main Subjects

1. De Mola CL, De França GVA, de Avila Quevedo L, Horta BL. Low birth weight, preterm birth and small for gestational age association with adult depression: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(5):340-7. [DOI:10.1192/bjp.bp.113.139014] [PMID]
2. Mombo-Ngoma G, Mackanga JR, González R, Ouedraogo S, Kakolwa MA, Manego RZ, et al. Young adolescent girls are at high risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa: an observational multicountry study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(6):e011783. [DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011783] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Farzaneh F, Tavakolikia Z, Soleimanzadeh Mousavi SH. Assessment of occurrence of preeclampsia and some clinical and demographic risk factors in Zahedan city in 2017. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2019;41(6):583-8. [DOI:10.1080/10641963.2018.1523919] [PMID]
4. Khodaverdi S, Mohammadbeigi R, Vahdat M, Bayat SM, Khodaverdi M. Pregnancy and renal transplantation. Nephrourol Mon. 2018;10(3). [DOI:10.5812/numonthly.63052]
5. Omani-Samani R, Sepidarkish M, Safiri S, Esmailzadeh A, Vesali S, Farzaneh F, et al. Impact of gestational weight gain on cesarean delivery risk, perinatal birth weight and gestational age in women with normal pre-pregnancy BMI. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2018;68(4):258-63. [DOI:10.1007/s13224-017-1023-2] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Rosenberg RE, Ahmed ANU, Ahmed S, Saha SK, Chowdhury MA, Black RE, et al. Determining gestational age in a low-resource setting: validity of last menstrual period. J Health Popul Nutr. 2009;27(3):332. [DOI:10.3329/jhpn.v27i3.3375]
7. Teimoori B, Khaefi Ashkzari A, Farzaneh F. Comparative Study of Ultrasound with Transvaginal Finger Examination in Diagnosis of Abnormal Position and Presentation of Fetal Head. Zahedan j Res Med sci 2021;23(4). [DOI:10.5812/zjrms.106566]
8. Razavi M, Rashidi Fakari F, Jafari FS, Farzaneh F, Sargolzaei N. The role of uterine artery doppler ultrasound in the second trimester in predicting preeclampsia. Int J Pediatr. 2019;7(5):9405-11.
9. Butt K, Lim K, Bly S, Cargill Y, Davies G, Denis N, et al. Determination of gestational age by ultrasound. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014;36(2):171-81. [DOI:10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30664-2] [PMID]
10. Westerway SC. Estimating fetal weight for best clinical outcome. Australas J Ultrasound Med. 2012;15(1):13-7. [DOI:10.1002/j.2205-0140.2012.tb00136.x] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Ashrafganjooei T, Naderi T, Eshrati B, Babapoor N. Accuracy of ultrasound, clinical and maternal estimates of birth weight in term women. 2010. [DOI:10.26719/2010.16.3.313] [PMID]
12. Firoozabadi R, Botorabi T, Tayebi N. Determination of accuracy of ultrasound and Naegele's rule in predicting of delivery date. J Rafsanjan Med Sci Univ. 2007;6:163.
13. Dammer U, Raabe E, Kehl S, Schmid M, Mayr A, Schild RL, et al. Sonographic Weight Estimation in Small-for-Gestational-Age Fetuses. Ultraschall Med. 2015;36(6):630-6. [DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1366754] [PMID]
14. Scioscia M, Scioscia F, Scioscia G, Bettocchi S. Statistical limits in sonographic estimation of birth weight. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291(1):59-66. [DOI:10.1007/s00404-014-3384-4] [PMID]
15. Weiner Z, Ben-Shlomo I, Beck-Fruchter R, Goldberg Y, Shalev E. Clinical and ultrasonographic weight estimation in large for gestational age fetus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;105(1):20-4. [DOI:10.1016/S0301-2115(02)00140-9] [PMID]
16. Bisahnyui P, Nkfusai CN, Bede F, Kemjei M, Atuhaire C, Nchanji K, et al. Comparative study of clinical methods versus ultrasound methods for accurate gestational age determination in different trimesters of pregnancy, Ndop District Hospital, North West region, Cameroon. Pan Afr Med J. 2020;37. [DOI:10.11604/pamj.2020.37.4.17981] [PMID] [PMCID]
17. Olsen O, Clausen J. Determination of the expected day of delivery--ultrasound has not been shown to be more accurate than the calendar method. Ugeskr Laeg. 1998;160(14):2088-90.
18. Dehghani Firouzabadi R, Botorabi T, Tayebi N. The Accuracy Determination of the Naegele's Rule and Sonography for Estimating the Delivery Date. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci. 2007;6(3):163-70.