Advertisement

Fetal Growth pp 319-324 | Cite as

Clinical dating and assessment

  • M. H. Hall
Conference paper

Abstract

Assessment of fetal growth requires the most accurate possible estimate of gestational age, for the midwife or obstetrician deciding upon investigation or intervention, for the neonatologist calculating survival and handicap rates, and for the epidemiologist studying the prevalence and aetiology. Unfortunately, the pursuit of precision often leads to the exclusion from published studies of women with uncertain gestation. In a study of 11 602 women in a total population in Aberdeen such uncertainty was associated with irregular menstruation (present in 10.2% of all women), with oral contraceptive use (reported by 11.0% of all women), and with an uncertain last menstrual period (LMP) (in 8.9% of all women),(1) and with various other factors such as lactational amenorrhoea. Women with uncertain gestation are not a homogenous group, but tend to have poorer outcomes, so that their exclusion would mean omitting 37% of perinatal deaths, 34% of those with low birthweight babies, and 37% of preterm labours.(2) This is clearly inappropriate and it is therefore necessary to continue to take a careful clinical history, to examine women carefully, and make full use of available biophysical and biochemical tests when clinically indicated.

Keywords

Fetal Growth Perinatal Death Gestation Length Last Menstrual Period Maternal Weight Gain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hall MH, Carr-Hill RA, Fraser C, Campbell D, Samphier ML. The extent and antecedents of uncertain gestation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 445–451.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hall MH, Carr-Hill RA. The significance of uncertain gestation for obstetric outcome. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985; 92: 452–460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization Expert Committee on Maternal and Child Health. Public Health Aspects of Low Birthweight. Third Report of the Expert Committee on Maternal and Child Health. Technical Report Series 1961. 217: Geneva: WHO, 1961.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chamberlain R. Birthweight and length of gestation. In: British Births 1970, Vol 1. The First Week of Life. Eds. R Chamberlain, IG Chamber, B Howlett, A Claireux. London: Heinemann Medical, 1970.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hall MH, Carr-Hill RA. Impact of sex ratio on onset and management of labour. Br Med J 1982; 285: 401–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farr V, Mitchell RG, Neligan GA, Parkin JM. The definition of some external characteristics used in the assessment of gestational age in the newborn infant. Dev Med Child Neurol 1966; 8: 507–511.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dubowitz LM, Dubowitz V, Golding C. Clinical assessment of gestational age in the newborn infants. J Paediatr 1970; 77: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Report of the FIGO Sub-Committee on Perinatal Epidemiology and Health Statistics following a Workship in Cairo November 11–18 1984. Methodology of Measurement and Recording of Infant Growth in the Perinatal Period. FIGO, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hawkins DF. “Gestation” and “completed” weeks. J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 4: 1.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Secher NJ, Kern Hansen P, Thomsen BL, Keiding N. Growth retardation in preterm infants. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 94: 115–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bakketeig LS, Hoffman HJ, Harley EE. The tendency to repeat gestational age and birthweight in successive births. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 135: 1086–1103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ounsted M. Small-for-dates babies: a developmental update. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 1988; 2: 203–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carr-Hill RA, Pritchard C. The Development and Exploitation of Empirical Birthweight Standards. Basingstoke: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomson AM, Billewicz WZ. Clinical significance of weight trends during pregnancy. Lancet 1953; i: 243–247.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boyd ME, Usher RH, McLean FH. Fetal macrosomia: prediction risks, proposed management. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 61: 715–722.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eastman NJ, Jackson E. Weight relationships in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1968; 23: 1003–1025.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Niswander K, Jackson EC. Physical characteristics of the gravida and their association with birthweight and perinatal death. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1974; 119: 306–313.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lawton FG, Mason CG, Kelly KA, Ramsay IN, Morewood GA. Poor maternal weight gain between 28 and 32 weeks gestation may predict small-for-gestational-age infants. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 95: 884–887.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Campbell DM, Carr-Hill RA, Knox A, Lemon J. Hypertension, maternal weight gain and birthweight. Clin Exp Hyperten 1987; 2: 299–310.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Svigos JM. The macrosomic infants: a high risk complication. Med J Aust 1981; 1: 245–246.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hepburn M, Rosenberg K. An audit of the detection and management of small-for-gestational-age babies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 93: 212–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Villar J, Belizan JM. The evaluation of the methods used in the diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1986; 41: 187–199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. H. Hall

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations