Farname Inc. in collaboration with Iranian Society of Gynecology Oncology

Author

Associated Professor, Infertility Fellowship, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of medicine, Infectious disease and Tropical medicine research center of Zahedan university of medical sciences, Endometriosis Research Center of Iran University of medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

: 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 is necessary to know the exact method in this field. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the accuracy of ultrasound at 8-16 weeks with Naegel’s Revised Rule of the delivery date.
: 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. Paired t-test was used to compare data.
: The results of our study showed that the average difference between the Naegel’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 Naegel’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.
: 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 Naegel’s Revised  Rule.

Keywords

  1. 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. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2014;205(5):340-7. 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. 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. Clinical and Experimental Hypertension. 2019;41(6):583-8. 4. Khodaverdi S, Mohammadbeigi R, Vahdat M, Bayat SM, Khodaverdi M. Pregnancy and renal transplantation. Nephro-Urology Monthly. 2018;10(3). 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. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. 2018;68(4):258-63. 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. Journal of health, population, and nutrition. 2009;27(3):332. 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 Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2021;23(4). 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. International Journal of Pediatrics. 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. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2014;36(2):171-81. 10. Westerway SC. Estimating fetal weight for best clinical outcome. Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine. 2012;15(1):13-7. 11. Ashrafganjooei T, Naderi T, Eshrati B, Babapoor N. Accuracy of ultrasound, clinical and maternal estimates of birth weight in term women. 2010. 12. Firoozabadi R, Botorabi T, Tayebi N. Determination of accuracy of ultrasound and Naegele’s rule in predicting of delivery date. Article in Persian] Rafsanjan Med Sci Univ J. 2007;6:163. 13. Dammer U, Raabe E, Kehl S, Schmid M, Mayr A, Schild R, et al. Sonographic weight estimation in small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Ultraschall in der Medizin-European Journal of Ultrasound. 2015;36(06):630-6. 14. Scioscia M, Scioscia F, Scioscia G, Bettocchi S. Statistical limits in sonographic estimation of birth weight. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics. 2015;291(1):59-66. 15. Weiner Z, Ben-Shlomo I, Beck-Fruchter R, Goldberg Y, Shalev E. Clinical and ultrasonographic weight estimation in large for gestational age fetus. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2002;105(1):20-4. 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. The Pan African Medical Journal. 2020;37. 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. Ugeskrift for laeger. 1998;160(14):2088-90. 18. DehghaniFirouzabadi R, Botorabi T, Tayebi N. The Accuracy Determination of the Naegele’s Rule and Sonography for Estimating the Delivery Date. Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences. 2007;6(3):163-70.