Biparietal diameter vs crown–rump length as standard parameter for late first‐trimester pregnancy dating
H. K. Gjessing,P. Grøttum,J. M. Dreier,S. H. Eik‐Nes
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.29124
2024-10-26
Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Abstract:Objective To compare the precision of biparietal diameter (BPD) and crown–rump length (CRL) as predictors of gestational age in the human fetus in the late first and early second trimesters, using a population‐based approach. Methods We constructed term and gestational‐age prediction curves for first‐trimester dating, based on 11 041 pregnancies with 12 260 measurements of CRL and/or BPD from a population‐based Norwegian clinical database. We used a population‐based approach with local linear quantile regression, combined with a time‐to‐event strategy that compensates for induced births. Term prediction precision was assessed by estimating and comparing the prediction residual curves using a time‐to‐event analysis. Individual differences in gestational‐age predictions from CRL and BPD were assessed using measurements performed on the same fetus on the same day. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of not distinguishing between non‐spontaneous and spontaneous births. Results CRL and BPD provided almost identical term prediction precision judged from the residual distribution. In about 51% of examinations, the difference in predicted gestational age was 1 day or less; 24% of examinations had a difference of 2 days, 14% had a difference of 3 days, 7% had a difference of 4 days and only 5% of all examinations had a difference of 5 days or more. Incorrectly removing induced births from the analysis, or treating them as spontaneous, would cause a substantial systematic prediction bias of about 2 days. Conclusions Based on population data, using comparisons at an individual level, our study found that BPD is as precise as CRL when used for first‐trimester dating. BPD has advantages from a clinical point of view, since it is technically less challenging and less time‐consuming to measure compared with CRL, and can be measured and assessed throughout the entire pregnancy. © 2024 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,obstetrics & gynecology,acoustics