Can the date of last menstrual period be trusted in the first trimester? Comparisons of gestational age measures from a prospective cohort study in six low-income to middle-income countries

Objectives We examined gestational age (GA) estimates for live and still births, and prematurity rates based on last menstrual period (LMP) compared with ultrasonography (USG) among pregnant women at seven sites in six low-resource countries. Design Prospective cohort study Setting and participants This study included data from the Global Network’s population-based Maternal and Newborn Health Registry which follows pregnant women in six low-income and middle-income countries (Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Pakistan and Zambia). Participants in this analysis were 42 803 women, including their 43 230 babies, who registered for the study in their first trimester based on GA estimated either by LMP or USG and had a live or stillbirth with an estimated GA of 20–42 weeks. Outcome measures GA was estimated in weeks and days based on LMP and/or USG. Prematurity was defined as GA of 20 weeks+0 days through 36 weeks+6 days, calculated by both USG and LMP. Results Overall, average GA varied ≤1 week between LMP and USG. Mean GA for live births by LMP was lower than by USG (adjusted mean difference (95% CI) = −0.23 (–0.29 to –0.17) weeks). Among stillbirths, a higher GA was estimated by LMP than USG (adjusted mean difference (95% CI)= 0.42 (0.11 to 0.72) weeks). Preterm birth rates for live births were significantly higher when dated by LMP (adjusted rate difference (95% CI)= 4.20 (3.56 to 4.85)). There was no significant difference in preterm birth rates for stillbirths. Conclusion The small differences in GA for LMP versus USG in the Guatemalan and Indian sites suggest that LMP may be a useful alternative to USG for GA dating during the first trimester until availability of USG improves in those areas. Further research is needed to assess LMP for first-trimester GA dating in other regions with limited access to USG. Trial registration number NCT01073475.

[1]  F. Esamai,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of low-dose aspirin for the prevention of preterm birth: a prospective study of the Global Network for Women’s and Children’s Health Research , 2023, The Lancet. Global health.

[2]  D. Mitra,et al.  Factors associated with calendar literacy and last menstrual period (LMP) recall: a prospective programmatic implication to maternal health in Bangladesh , 2020, BMJ Open.

[3]  R. Haque,et al.  Looking beyond the numbers: quality assurance procedures in the Global Network for Women’s and Children’s Health Research Maternal Newborn Health Registry , 2020, Reproductive Health.

[4]  S. Saleem,et al.  Reports from the NICHD Global Network’s Maternal and Newborn Health Registry: supplement introduction , 2020, Reproductive Health.

[5]  S. Gupta,et al.  “I can guess the month … but beyond that, I can’t tell” an exploratory qualitative study of health care provider perspectives on gestational age estimation in Rajasthan, India , 2020, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[6]  S. M. Ali,et al.  Performance of late pregnancy biometry for gestational age dating in low-income and middle-income countries: a prospective, multicountry, population-based cohort study from the WHO Alliance for Maternal and Newborn Health Improvement (AMANHI) Study Group , 2020, The Lancet. Global health.

[7]  George Ayodo,et al.  Knowledge of menstruation and fertility among adults in rural Western Kenya: Gaps and opportunities for support , 2020, PloS one.

[8]  Roman Goldenberg,et al.  Low-dose aspirin for the prevention of preterm delivery in nulliparous women with a singleton pregnancy (ASPIRIN): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial , 2020, The Lancet.

[9]  J. Killewo,et al.  Factors affecting early identification of pregnant women by community health workers in Morogoro, Tanzania , 2019, BMC Public Health.

[10]  W. Carlo,et al.  Trends of antenatal care during pregnancy in low- and middle-income countries: Findings from the global network maternal and newborn health registry. , 2019, Seminars in perinatology.

[11]  H. Tinto,et al.  The assessment of gestational age: a comparison of different methods from a malaria pregnancy cohort in sub-Saharan Africa , 2019, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[12]  T. Tahsina,et al.  Study protocol of a 4- parallel arm, superiority, community based cluster randomized controlled trial comparing paper and e-platform based interventions to improve accuracy of recall of last menstrual period (LMP) dates in rural Bangladesh , 2018, BMC Public Health.

[13]  Jun Zhang,et al.  Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis , 2018, The Lancet. Global health.

[14]  E. K. Shriver,et al.  A description of the methods of the aspirin supplementation for pregnancy indicated risk reduction in nulliparas (ASPIRIN) study , 2017, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[15]  R. Nathan,et al.  Evaluation of Focused Obstetric Ultrasound Examinations by Health Care Personnel in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guatemala, Kenya, Pakistan, and Zambia , 2017, Current problems in diagnostic radiology.

[16]  Nicholas P. Deputy,et al.  Validity of gestational age estimates by last menstrual period and neonatal examination compared to ultrasound in Vietnam , 2017, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[17]  F. Witter,et al.  A home calendar and recall method of last menstrual period for estimating gestational age in rural Bangladesh: a validation study , 2016, Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition.

[18]  Siobhan M. Dolan,et al.  Adverse Infant Outcomes Associated with Discordant Gestational Age Estimates. , 2016, Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology.

[19]  E. Mcclure,et al.  The Global Network for Women's and Children's Health Research: A model of capacity-building research. , 2015, Seminars in fetal & neonatal medicine.

[20]  W. Carlo,et al.  Data quality monitoring and performance metrics of a prospective, population-based observational study of maternal and newborn health in low resource settings , 2015, Reproductive Health.

[21]  W. Carlo,et al.  Lost to follow-up among pregnant women in a multi-site community based maternal and newborn health registry: a prospective study , 2015, Reproductive Health.

[22]  R. Nathan,et al.  Screening Obstetric Ultrasound Training for a 5-Country Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial , 2014, Ultrasound quarterly.

[23]  Roman Goldenberg,et al.  The Maternal and Newborn Health Registry Study of the Global Network for Women's and Children's Health Research , 2012, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[24]  Roman Goldenberg,et al.  Epidemiology of stillbirth in low‐middle income countries: A Global Network Study , 2011, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[25]  P. Opara.  Gestational Age Assessment In The Newborn – A Review , 2009 .

[26]  R. Black,et al.  Determining Gestational Age in a Low-resource Setting: Validity of Last Menstrual Period , 2009, Journal of health, population, and nutrition.

[27]  Katherine E Hartmann,et al.  Comparison of gestational age at birth based on last menstrual period and ultrasound during the first trimester. , 2008, Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology.

[28]  C. Berg,et al.  Variation between last-menstrual-period and clinical estimates of gestational age in vital records. , 2007, American journal of epidemiology.

[29]  J. Moodley,et al.  The role of urine pregnancy testing in facilitating access to antenatal care and abortion services in South Africa: a cross-sectional study , 2006, BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.

[30]  D. Savitz,et al.  Comparison of pregnancy dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, and their combination. , 2002, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.