Adherence to Swedish national pregnancy dating guidelines and management of discrepancies between pregnancy dating methods: a survey study.
Adherence to guidelines
Clinical practice
Estimated day of delivery
Gestational age
Last menstrual period
Pregnancy
Pregnancy dating
Ultrasound
Journal
Reproductive health
ISSN: 1742-4755
Titre abrégé: Reprod Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101224380
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Jul 2019
04 Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
14
09
2018
accepted:
25
06
2019
entrez:
6
7
2019
pubmed:
6
7
2019
medline:
21
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Swedish national guidelines for pregnancy dating were published in 2010. Follow-up is needed to assess adherence and to identify whether any clinical topics are not covered in the guidelines. All units in Sweden that performed ultrasound-based pregnancy dating were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire comprising multiple-response questions and commentary fields. Information was collected regarding baseline information, current and previous clinical practice, and management of discrepancies between last-menstrual-period- and ultrasound-based methods for pregnancy dating. The response rate was 79%. Half of the units offered first-trimester ultrasound to all pregnant women. However, contrary to the guidelines, the crown-rump length was not used for ultrasound-based pregnancy dating in most units. Instead, ultrasound-based pregnancy dating was performed only if the biparietal diameter was between 21 and 55 mm. Management of discrepancies between methods for pregnancy dating varied widely. The units reported high adherence to national guidelines, except for early pregnancy dating, for which many units followed unwritten or informal guidelines. The management of discrepancies between last-menstrual-period-based and ultrasound-based estimated day of delivery varied widely. These findings emphasize the need for regular updating of national written guidelines and efforts to improve their implementation in all units.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Swedish national guidelines for pregnancy dating were published in 2010. Follow-up is needed to assess adherence and to identify whether any clinical topics are not covered in the guidelines.
METHODS
METHODS
All units in Sweden that performed ultrasound-based pregnancy dating were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire comprising multiple-response questions and commentary fields. Information was collected regarding baseline information, current and previous clinical practice, and management of discrepancies between last-menstrual-period- and ultrasound-based methods for pregnancy dating.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The response rate was 79%. Half of the units offered first-trimester ultrasound to all pregnant women. However, contrary to the guidelines, the crown-rump length was not used for ultrasound-based pregnancy dating in most units. Instead, ultrasound-based pregnancy dating was performed only if the biparietal diameter was between 21 and 55 mm. Management of discrepancies between methods for pregnancy dating varied widely.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The units reported high adherence to national guidelines, except for early pregnancy dating, for which many units followed unwritten or informal guidelines. The management of discrepancies between last-menstrual-period-based and ultrasound-based estimated day of delivery varied widely. These findings emphasize the need for regular updating of national written guidelines and efforts to improve their implementation in all units.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31272510
doi: 10.1186/s12978-019-0760-3
pii: 10.1186/s12978-019-0760-3
pmc: PMC6610777
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
95Références
Epidemiology. 2002 May;13(3):370
pubmed: 11964943
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jul;24(1):30-4
pubmed: 15229913
BJOG. 2005 Feb;112(2):145-52
pubmed: 15663577
Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2007 Jan-Apr;93(1-3):331-53
pubmed: 16949653
Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Nov;108(5):1234-45
pubmed: 17077251
BJOG. 2008 Apr;115(5):585-9
pubmed: 18333938
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun;198(6):703.e1-5; discussion 703.e5-6
pubmed: 18538160
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Aug;40(2):179-85
pubmed: 21953817
Am J Epidemiol. 2012 Sep 1;176(5):443-55
pubmed: 22886591
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jan;41(1):102-13
pubmed: 23280739
BMJ Open. 2013 Jan 24;3(1):null
pubmed: 23355664
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Jul;98(7):2687-92
pubmed: 23690313
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014 Sep;93(9):868-73
pubmed: 24976041
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 13;11(1):e0147109
pubmed: 26760299
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Jan;96(1):86-95
pubmed: 27696340
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Feb;96(2):223-232
pubmed: 27858960
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 May;129(5):e150-e154
pubmed: 28426621
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Apr;97(4):440-444
pubmed: 29352467
Sci Rep. 2018 May 2;8(1):6936
pubmed: 29720591