Reliability and validity of last menstrual period for gestational age estimation in a low-to-middle-income setting.

AIM: Gestational age estimation by ultrasonography is the gold standard for dating pregnancies. However, the availability of prenatal ultrasonography in low-to-middle-income countries is limited. This study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of last menstrual period (LMP) as a gestational age dating method among women in Johannesburg, South Africa. METHODS: A total of 741 pregnant women were enrolled into a longitudinal study (June 2013 to July 2016). Gestational age was determined by LMP and ultrasonography. Differences in ultrasound-based and LMP-based gestational age estimates were assessed according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists' guidelines and women were classified as having discrepant results or not. Multiple statistical analyses determined the level of agreement between the two methods and validity of LMP estimates. RESULTS: Compared to ultrasound, dating by LMP assessed gestational age as 0.2 days longer. Women with discrepant results were of significantly lower weight and household socioeconomic status than those without discrepancies. While there was a substantial agreement (k = 0.64; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.54, 0.71, P < 0.001) between the two methods, LMP only had a 29.0% (95% CI: 14.2, 48.0) sensitivity in identifying late-term neonates and a 33.3% (95% CI: 4.33, 77.7) sensitivity in identifying post-term neonates. CONCLUSION: In the absence of ultrasound, LMP is a reliable alternative for gestational age dating during early pregnancy. However, it is not sensitive in identifying late- and post-term pregnancies and should not be relied upon to make clinical decisions regarding elective cesarean section or induction of labor for supposed prolonged pregnancies.The authors wish to acknowledge their colleagues in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the Fetal Medicine Unit at CHBAH as well as the research team at DPHRU and the study participants

Practice advisory: interim guidance for care of obstetric patients during a zika virus outbreak

Zika during pregnancy has been associated with birth defects, specifically significant microcephaly. Transmission of Zika to the fetus has been documented in all trimesters; Zika virus RNA has been detected in fetal tissue from early missed abortions, amniotic fluid, term neonates and the placenta. However, much is not yet known about Zika virus in pregnancy. Uncertainties include the incidence of Zika virus infection among pregnant women in areas of Zika virus transmission, the rate of vertical transmission and the rate with which infected fetuses manifest complications such as microcephaly or demise. The absence of this important information makes management and decision making in the setting of potential Zika virus exposure (i.e. travel to endemic areas) or maternal infection, difficult. Currently, there is no vaccine or treatment for this infection

Home management of preterm premature rupture of membranes

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135641/1/ijgo153.pd

The History of Preconception Care: Evolving Guidelines and Standards

This article explores the history of the preconception movement in the United States and the current status of professional practice guidelines and standards. Professionals with varying backgrounds (nurses, nurse practitioners, family practice physicians, pediatricians, nurse midwives, obstetricians/gynecologists) are in a position to provide preconception health services; standards and guidelines for numerous professional organizations, therefore, are explored. The professional nursing organization with the most highly developed preconception health standards is the American Academy of Nurse Midwives (ACNM); for physicians, it is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). These guidelines and standards are discussed in detail

Women’s beliefs about the duration of pregnancy and the earliest gestational age to safely give birth.

Background: American evidence suggests women are not well informed about the optimal duration of pregnancy or the earliest time for safe birth. Similar evidence does not exist in Australia. Aims: To explore pregnant women’s beliefs about the duration of pregnancy and the earliest time for safe birth, and to compare the results with US data. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of pregnant women attending antenatal clinics at four public hospitals in Sydney, Australia, included collection of maternal and pregnancy characteristics, and two questions exploring women’s beliefs about the duration of pregnancy, and the earliest time for safe birth. Responses were grouped as: late preterm (34-36 weeks), early term (37-38 weeks), and full term (39-40 weeks). Results: Of 784 surveyed women, 52% chose 39-40 weeks as the duration of a full term pregnancy, while for the earliest time for safe birth, 10% chose 39-40 weeks and 57% chose 37-38 weeks. Some maternal characteristics were associated with women’s beliefs, including having a medical and/or pregnancy complication, country of birth, level of education, employment status, and attending a tertiary hospital. The associations were different for each question. In comparison with US studies, Australian women were more likely to choose later gestations for both the duration of pregnancy and the earliest time for safe birth. Conclusions: A significant proportion of Australian women believe that full term pregnancy and earliest time for safe birth occur before 39 weeks, suggesting opportunities for antenatal education.The authors would like to thank the women who participated in the survey, and acknowledge the contribution of the research midwives, Jill Milligan, Rachel Reid, Jocelyn Sedgley and Katrina White-Mathews, as well as Dr. Antonia Shand for assisting with participant recruitment. This work was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence Grant (1001066). CLR is supported by an NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (#APP1021025)