Estimation of gestational age in early pregnancy from crownrump length when gestational age range is truncated: the case study of the INTERGROWTH21^{st}Project
 Eric O Ohuma^{1, 2}Email author,
 Aris T Papageorghiou^{1},
 Jose Villar^{1} and
 Douglas G Altman^{2}
DOI: 10.1186/1471228813151
© Ohuma et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 2 September 2013
Accepted: 28 November 2013
Published: 7 December 2013
Abstract
Background
Fetal ultrasound scanning is considered vital for routine antenatal care with first trimester scans recommended for accurate estimation of gestational age (GA). A reliable estimate of gestational age is key information underpinning clinical care and allows estimation of expected date of delivery. Fetal crownrump length (CRL) is recommended over last menstrual period for estimating GA when measured in early pregnancy i.e. 9^{+0}13^{+6} weeks.
Methods
The INTERGROWTH21^{st} Project is the largest prospective study to collect data on CRL in geographically diverse populations and with a high level of quality control measures in place. We aim to develop a new gestational age estimation equation based on the crownrump length (CRL) from women recruited between 9^{+0}13^{+6} weeks. The main statistical challenge is modelling data when the outcome variable (GA) is truncated at both ends, i.e. at 9 and 14 weeks.
We explored three alternative statistical approaches to overcome the truncation of GA. To evaluate these strategies we generated a data set with no truncation of GA that was similar to the INTERGROWTH21^{st} Project CRL data, which we used to explore the performance of different methods of analysis of these data when we imposed truncation at 9 and 14 weeks of gestation. These 3 methods were first tested in a simulation based study using a previously published dating equation by Verburg et al. and evaluated how well each of them performed in relation to the model from which the data were generated. After evaluating the 3 approaches using simulated data based on the Verburg equations, the best approach will be applied to the INTERGROWTH21^{st} Project data to estimate GA from CRL.
Results
Results of these rather “ad hoc” statistical methods correspond very closely to the “real data” for Verburg, a data set that is similar to the INTERGROWTH21^{st} project CRL data set.
Conclusions
We are confident that we can use these approaches to get reliable estimates based on INTERGROWTH21^{st} Project CRL data. These approaches may be a solution to other truncation problems involving similar data though their application to other settings would need to be evaluated.
Keywords
Truncation INTERGROWTH21^{st} project Crownrump length Gestational age Simulation Extrapolation Restriction InversionBackground
Fetal ultrasound scanning is considered an essential part of routine antenatal care with first trimester scans recommended for confirming viability, accurate estimation of gestational age and determining the number of fetuses [1, 2]. Fetal crownrump length (CRL) is measured in early pregnancy primarily to determine the gestation age (GA) of a fetus and is most reliable between 9^{+0} to 13^{+6} weeks’ gestation, but not beyond [3]. Assessment of gestational age based on ultrasound (US) biometry was first introduced in 1969 by Campbell [4], and it has become the preferred method for dating pregnancy.
A reliable estimate of gestational age is key information as it underpins clinical care and allows estimation of the expected date of delivery. There are 3 ways to estimate gestational age early in pregnancy: a) based on a reliable first day of the last menstrual period (LMP) alone; b) based on an early (9^{+0} to 13^{+6} weeks) ultrasound alone, or c) LMP and ultrasound combined. Use of LMP is based on the assumption that pregnancy has a constant duration from the first day of the LMP with ovulation on the 14^{th} day [3]. This method of dating pregnancies, even for women whose menstrual history is certain, has been shown to be unreliable [5, 6]. Caution is recommended regarding use of last menstrual period (LMP) alone for dating because up to 50% of women are uncertain of their dates, have an irregular cycle, have recently stopped the oral contraceptive pill, are lactating or did not have a normal last menstrual period [7].
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guideline for Routine Antenatal Care (2008) and International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ISUOG) recommend that all pregnant women should be offered an early US examination to date pregnancies [1, 7, 8]. It is stated that ideally this should be performed by the measurement of CRL between 10 and 13^{+6} weeks which can reduce the need for induction of labour after 41 weeks of gestation. Although there is always a margin of error in USbased estimation [9], this error is relatively small compared to LMPbased estimations [8, 10].
Many dating charts are now in use though developed from different populations resulting in discrepancies when compared or applied to a specified population hence there is a need for an international reference dating equation and chart [11–15]. The INTERGROWTH21^{st} Project, described below, aims to generate fetal growth charts and also a new dating chart. In the study gestational age is based on the first day of LMP and corroborated by CRL using a known dating equation [16]. Therefore, only women between 9^{+0}13^{+6} weeks gestation whose estimation by both methods agreed within 7 days were recruited into the fetal growth longitudinal study.
To develop charts of fetal size we need to model CRL as a function of GA while for dating we interchange the variables and model GA as a function of CRL. This latter analysis is problematic if the available data are constrained by a restricted range of GA [17]; such a restriction is commonly in place, as fetal curling prevents accurate measurement beyond 13^{+6} weeks. In this paper we describe an exploration of strategies to overcome truncation of GA when developing equations and charts for dating pregnancies from CRL measurements.
Methods
The International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21^{st} Century (INTERGROWTH21^{st}) is a largescale, populationbased, multicentre project involving health institutions from eight geographically diverse countries (i.e. Brazil, China, India, Oman, Kenya, UK, USA and Italy), which aims to assess fetal, newborn and preterm growth under optimal conditions, in a manner similar to that adopted by the WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study [18]. This approach is important in the creation of fetal growth standards by selecting women regarded as “healthy”, educated, affluent and living in areas with minimal environmental constraints on growth [19].
The INTERGROWTH21^{st} Project has three major components, which were designed to create: 1) Longitudinally derived, prescriptive, international, fetal growth standards using both clinical and ultrasound measures; 2) Preterm, postnatal growth standards for those infants born ≥26^{+0} but <37^{+0} weeks of gestation in the longitudinal cohort, and 3) Birth weight, newborn length, and head circumference for gestational age standards derived from all newborns delivering at the study sites over an approximately 12 month period [19]. To ensure that ultrasound measurements are accurate and reproducible, centres adopted uniform methods, used identical ultrasound equipment in all the study sites; adopted standardised methodology to take fetal measurements, and employed locally accredited ultrasonographers who underwent standardisation training and monitoring.
One aim of the longitudinal study of the INTERGROWTH21^{st} Project is to develop a new gestational age estimation equation based on the crownrump length (CRL) from women recruited between 9^{+0}13^{+6} weeks. This will be the largest prospective study to collect data on CRL in geographically diverse populations, and with a high level of quality control measures in place.
Several reliable statistical methods exist for developing agerelated reference centiles [20–22]. These can be applied in a straightforward way for developing equations for fetal size as function of GA. For dating, however, we need to estimate GA as a function of fetal size, specifically the fetal CRL. We sought to use the INTERGROWTH21^{st} data to develop centiles for the distribution of GA for CRL values between 15 mm and 100 mm. The statistical challenge is this: How can we model data when the outcome variable (GA) is truncated at both ends, i.e. at 9 and 14 weeks, given the need to obtain estimates in the truncated regions? This restriction is part of the design of the INTERGROWTH21^{st} study based on the fact that CRL measurements are less reliable outside this range of GA [1, 7, 23–25].
Ignoring the truncation of GA would lead to seriously biased estimates. We explored three alternative statistical approaches to overcome the truncation of GA. To evaluate these strategies we generated a data set with no truncation of GA that was similar to the INTERGROWTH21^{st} Project CRL data, which we used to explore the performance of different methods of analysis of these data when we imposed truncation at 9 and 14 weeks of gestation. The choice of which approach is best is hard to justify through formal statistical testing, and is likely to depend on the specific data being analysed.
Statistical methods
where K is the normal equivalent deviate (z score) corresponding to a particular centile, e.g. K = 1.88 for the 97^{th} centile and 1.88 for the 3^{rd} centile, and the SD in this equation are the predicted estimates from the regression analysis. Fitted curves (3^{rd}, 50^{th}, and 97^{th} centiles) from different models were assessed visually for a good fit and by comparing the deviances from each model. The choice of centiles presented was purely based on what is commonly reported in the literature and also used in clinical practice as standard centiles. In addition; the INTERGROWTH21^{st} Project aims to complement the WHOMulticentre Growth Reference Study (MGRS) which produced reference standards for children aged 05 years where they also presented the 3^{rd} and 97^{th} centiles [18]. Goodness of fit was assessed by a scatter plot of the distribution of residuals in z scores by CRL and also by counting the number of observations below the 3^{rd} and above the 97^{th} centiles.
We explored three approaches to deal with truncation of gestational age at 9 and 14 weeks by (a) Simulation, Restriction and Extrapolation (b) Simulation (c) Inversion of model for predicting CRL from GA. Extrapolation was applied purely for the purposes of obtaining reliable estimates between 9 and 14 weeks in the presence of truncation at 9 weeks and 14 weeks. The resultant equation will not be used for dating beyond 14 weeks as this is not recommended in clinical practice. The reliability of fractional polynomial models for extrapolation has been discussed previously by Royston & Altman where they show that fractional polynomial models extrapolate well at least for fetal measurements [22]. These 3 methods were first tested in a simulation based study using a previously published dating equation by Verburg et al. [2]. We evaluated how well each of the 3 approaches performed in relation to the model from which the data were generated.
The Verburg equation was selected from the many dating equations in use as it is one of the five preferred dating equations according to a recent systematic review of the methodology used for creating dating charts [13]; it is also recommended by the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ISUOG) [1, 13]. The great strength of performing a simulation study based on a known dating equation is that it allows us to evaluate how well our proposed methods of dealing with truncation perform in a situation where we know the “truth” (i.e. the equations from which simulated data were obtained). After evaluating the 3 approaches using simulated data based on the Verburg equations, the best approach will be applied to the INTERGROWTH21^{st} Project data to estimate GA from CRL.
Here and throughout all logarithms are natural logarithms.
These equations assume that log GA has a normal distribution for any value of CRL. From these equations we simulated 100 observations for each CRL value from 5 mm and 110 mm in 1 mm increments, resulting in 10,600 observations in total. A sample size of 100 was chosen as it represented the average number of CRL observations for each GA in the INTERGROWTH21^{st} data and is large enough to remove effects of sampling variation. The GA was between 5 and 17 weeks, the GA range of original data from which the equations were obtained. We log transformed GA in all analyses to stabilise variance [2, 15, 20, 26].
Validation of the simulated data
Crownrump length (CRL) measurements in relation to gestational age for the original equation fit reported by Verburg et al.[2] compared to our model fit of the simulated data
Verburg’s original reported equation  Equation from the simulated data  

CRL (mm)  Median GA (Weeks) predicted from CRL  Median GA (Weeks) predicted from CRL  Difference in GA (days) 
5  6.336  6.324  0.082 
10  7.503  7.497  0.041 
15  8.312  8.310  0.015 
20  8.962  8.962  0.003 
25  9.519  9.521  0.017 
30  10.015  10.019  0.026 
35  10.469  10.474  0.032 
40  10.892  10.897  0.035 
45  11.290  11.296  0.036 
50  11.670  11.675  0.036 
55  12.034  12.039  0.033 
60  12.386  12.390  0.029 
65  12.727  12.731  0.023 
70  13.060  13.063  0.016 
75  13.386  13.387  0.008 
80  13.706  13.706  0.001 
85  14.021  14.019  0.012 
90  14.331  14.328  0.023 
95  14.638  14.633  0.036 
100  14.942  14.935  0.050 
Approach 1simulation for small crownrump length, restriction and extrapolation
Estimated gestational age in relation to crownrump length (CRL) measurements for the original equation reported by Verburg and a model fitted to the simulated data (Approach 1)
Verburg’s original equation  Approach 1  

Estimated GA (weeks)  Estimated GA (weeks)  Difference (days)  
CRL (mm)  3^{rd}centile  Median  97^{th}centile  3^{rd}centile  Median  97^{th}centile  3^{rd}centile  Median  97^{th}centile 
10  6.88  7.50  8.18  6.85  8.18  8.22  0.21  4.76  0.28 
15  7.63  8.31  9.06  7.60  8.53  9.09  0.21  1.54  0.21 
20  8.22  8.96  9.77  8.20  9.02  9.80  0.14  0.42  0.21 
25  8.73  9.52  10.38  8.72  9.51  10.40  0.07  0.07  0.14 
30  9.19  10.02  10.92  9.18  9.99  10.93  0.07  0.21  0.07 
35  9.60  10.47  11.41  9.60  10.45  11.41  0.00  0.14  0.00 
40  9.99  10.89  11.87  10.00  10.88  11.86  0.07  0.07  0.07 
45  10.36  11.29  12.31  10.37  11.30  12.29  0.07  0.07  0.14 
50  10.70  11.67  12.72  10.73  11.69  12.69  0.21  0.14  0.21 
55  11.04  12.03  13.12  11.08  12.07  13.07  0.28  0.28  0.35 
60  11.36  12.39  13.50  11.41  12.43  13.44  0.35  0.28  0.42 
65  11.67  12.73  13.87  11.74  12.77  13.80  0.49  0.28  0.49 
70  11.98  13.06  14.24  12.05  13.11  14.15  0.49  0.35  0.63 
75  12.28  13.39  14.59  12.37  13.43  14.49  0.63  0.28  0.70 
80  12.57  13.71  14.94  12.67  13.74  14.82  0.70  0.21  0.84 
85  12.86  14.02  15.28  12.98  14.04  15.15  0.84  0.14  0.91 
90  13.15  14.33  15.62  13.27  14.34  15.47  0.84  0.07  1.05 
95  13.43  14.64  15.96  13.57  14.62  15.79  0.98  0.14  1.19 
100  13.71  14.94  16.29  13.86  14.90  16.10  1.05  0.28  1.33 
Approach 2 – simulation for small and large crownrump length
Crownrump length (CRL) measurements in relation to gestational age for the original equation fit reported by Verburg compared to model fit of the simulated data (Approach 2)
Verburg’s original equation  Approach 2  

Estimated GA (weeks)  Estimated GA (weeks)  Difference (days)  
CRL (mm)  3^{rd}centile  Median  97^{th}centile  3^{rd}centile  Median  97^{th}centiles  3^{rd}centile  Median  97^{th}centile 
10  6.88  7.50  8.18  7.08  7.71  8.39  1.41  1.45  1.48 
15  7.63  8.31  9.06  7.70  8.38  9.12  0.52  0.47  0.41 
20  8.22  8.96  9.77  8.25  8.98  9.77  0.21  0.12  0.02 
25  8.73  9.52  10.38  8.75  9.52  10.36  0.11  0.00  0.12 
30  9.19  10.02  10.92  9.20  10.01  10.90  0.09  0.02  0.15 
35  9.60  10.47  11.41  9.62  10.47  11.39  0.11  0.01  0.14 
40  9.99  10.89  11.87  10.01  10.89  11.86  0.13  0.01  0.13 
45  10.36  11.29  12.31  10.38  11.29  12.29  0.14  0.02  0.12 
50  10.70  11.67  12.72  10.72  11.67  12.70  0.13  0.00  0.15 
55  11.04  12.03  13.12  11.05  12.03  13.09  0.09  0.04  0.20 
60  11.36  12.39  13.50  11.37  12.37  13.46  0.03  0.11  0.28 
65  11.67  12.73  13.87  11.67  12.70  13.82  0.06  0.21  0.39 
70  11.98  13.06  14.24  11.96  13.01  14.16  0.18  0.35  0.54 
75  12.28  13.39  14.59  12.23  13.31  14.49  0.33  0.51  0.73 
80  12.57  13.71  14.94  12.50  13.60  14.81  0.50  0.71  0.95 
85  12.86  14.02  15.28  12.76  13.89  15.11  0.71  0.94  1.20 
90  13.15  14.33  15.62  13.01  14.16  15.41  0.95  1.20  1.49 
95  13.43  14.64  15.96  13.25  14.42  15.70  1.22  1.50  1.81 
100  13.71  14.94  16.29  13.49  14.68  15.98  1.51  1.82  2.17 
Approach 3 – interchanging the X and Y axes from a model for size
Crownrump length (CRL) measurements in relation to gestational age for the original equation fit reported by Verburg compared to model fit of the simulated data (Approach 3)
Verburg’s original equation  Approach 3  

Estimated GA (weeks)  Estimated GA (weeks)  Difference (days)  
CRL (mm)  3^{rd}centile  Median  97^{th}centile  3^{rd}centile  Median  97^{th}centiles  3^{rd}centile  Median  97^{th}centile 
10  6.88  7.50  8.18  6.97  7.29  8.15  0.60  1.49  0.23 
15  7.63  8.31  9.06  7.66  8.17  9.08  0.26  1.00  0.14 
20  8.22  8.96  9.77  8.23  8.85  9.81  0.10  0.79  0.25 
25  8.73  9.52  10.38  8.73  9.42  10.42  0.02  0.68  0.29 
30  9.19  10.02  10.92  9.19  9.93  10.96  0.00  0.62  0.29 
35  9.60  10.47  11.41  9.60  10.39  11.45  0.00  0.57  0.28 
40  9.99  10.89  11.87  9.99  10.81  11.91  0.02  0.54  0.26 
45  10.36  11.29  12.31  10.36  11.22  12.34  0.05  0.52  0.24 
50  10.70  11.67  12.72  10.72  11.60  12.75  0.08  0.50  0.22 
55  11.04  12.03  13.12  11.05  11.96  13.15  0.11  0.48  0.20 
60  11.36  12.39  13.50  11.38  12.32  13.53  0.14  0.47  0.18 
65  11.67  12.73  13.87  11.70  12.66  13.90  0.16  0.47  0.15 
70  11.98  13.06  14.24  12.01  12.99  14.25  0.17  0.47  0.12 
75  12.28  13.39  14.59  12.30  13.32  14.61  0.18  0.47  0.09 
80  12.57  13.71  14.94  12.60  13.64  14.95  0.18  0.48  0.05 
85  12.86  14.02  15.28  12.88  13.95  15.29  0.16  0.49  0.01 
90  13.15  14.33  15.62  13.17  14.26  15.62  0.14  0.52  0.04 
95  13.43  14.64  15.96  13.44  14.56  15.94  0.11  0.55  0.10 
100  13.71  14.94  16.29  13.72  14.86  16.27  0.06  0.58  0.16 
Computing an equation for the standard deviation
where K is the normal equivalent deviate (z score) corresponding to a particular centile, e.g. K = 1.88 for the 97^{th} centile and 1.88 for the 3^{rd} centile, and the SD in this equation are the predicted estimates from the regression analysis just described.
Results
The predicted values of median GA from approach 2 agreed within 1 day for CRL between 15 mm and 85 mm with the largest difference at the 2 extremes of CRL, i.e. 1.5 days for CRL of 10 mm and 1.8 days for CRL of 100 mm (Figure 5, Table 3, and Figure 7). There were 207/7640 (2.7%) observations below the 3^{rd} centile and 232/7640 (3.0%) above the 97^{th} centile for CRL between 20 mm and 100 mm (Figure 5).
Approach 3 agreed within 1 day for CRL between 15 mm and 100 mm with the largest difference of 1.5 days observed at CRL of 10 mm. Approach 3 underestimated the predicted median GA across the whole range by ~0.6 days (Figure 6, Table 4, and Figure 7). There were 128/6448 (2.0%) observations below the 3^{rd} centile and 221/6448 (3.4%) above the 97^{th} centile for CRL between 20 mm and 100 mm (Figure 6). The estimates obtained from the computation of SD for approach 3 were remarkably similar to those obtained from the three sets of X, Y coordinates of GA and the predicted 3^{rd}, 50^{th} and 97^{th} centiles for CRL (Figure 6 panels B and C).
Figure 8 shows data from 1600 fetuses (~35% of the overall target sample) included in the INTERGROWTH 21^{st} study, in the same format as Figure 2. The close similarity between the two data sets is apparent. The collection of INTERGROWTH21^{st} data will be completed in 2013.
Discussion
The main aim of this study was to explore the best methodology for modelling data when the outcome variable (GA) is truncated at both ends, i.e. at 9 and 14 weeks. We evaluated 3 approaches to overcome this difficulty by generating data from an existing equation (Verburg). The three approaches provided a good fit to the data (Figure 6) when compared to the original equation reported by Verburg. We appreciate that the choice of which approach is the best is hard to justify through formal statistical testing. Approach 2 was considered the best since it gives excellent results (i.e. estimates agreed within 1 day for CRL between 15 mm and 85 mm with the largest difference of 1.8 days at the very extreme end) when compared to approach 1 which had the largest difference (4.7 days) at the lower end of CRL distribution while approach 3 consistently underestimated GA by about half a day over the entire range of CRL.
A recent systematic review of CRL dating equations and charts showed large variations between studies with only very few studies reporting complete information on inclusion/exclusion criteria, maternal demographics, ultrasound quality control, last menstruation reliability and sample selection [13]. This potential for bias, methodological heterogeneity and limitations would affect clinical decisionmaking depending on the equation used; hence the need for an international dating equation and chart. The INTERGROWTH21^{st} population which is carefully selected and actively followed up during pregnancy with a known outcome at birth provides a population that is ideal for developing such an international standard equation and chart. The INTERGROWTH21^{st} project is the biggest study so far to prospectively collect data on CRL. These data are of very high quality, with ultrasound measurements made by highly trained sonographers following a standardised protocol using standard ultrasonography equipment with latest technology across 8 geographically diverse sites.
Gestational age estimation is an important component of clinical care and epidemiological studies. We believe that, as in other fields of medicine, all available information should be used for assessment, i.e. both LMP and ultrasound should be taken into account and agreement between the two required to be certain of its validity. One should consider that discrepancy between LMP and ultrasound could be due to disturbances in early fetal growth rather than an automatic assumption of incorrect dates, leading to redating. There is wide agreement that CRL is the best measure for assessing gestational age, certainly up to 14 weeks GA, since LMP is affected by both random error and systematic tendency to overstate the duration of gestation, biological variability and errors of the method including recall bias, digit preference, and additional bleeding after conception [5, 27–32]. Ultrasoundbased methods measure fetal size and use reliable LMPbased formulas (of which many are in use) to estimate gestational age; however this assumes no biological variability as all fetuses of a given size are estimated to have the same gestational age. However, biological variability exists and this is compounded by variability due to measurement error due to equipment and observer. Thus, accurate measurements of CRL require rigorous standardisation before initiation of the study and continuous quality control measures should be implemented similar to those routinely used in laboratory practices.
The implications of these different methods on research findings have recently been discussed [12]. Ultrasound can accurately determine the day of conception to within 5 days either way for 95% of cases and may be closer than LMP by an average of 23 days in predicting the date of a spontaneous delivery [1, 17, 27, 28, 33, 34].
The unusual problem of truncation that we encountered in the INTERGROWTH21^{st} CRL data is not unique in that it has been present in other studies, but has never been adequately addressed. This feature of the data has the potential to introduce considerable bias, mostly at the extremes of CRL, unless analysed carefully. Altman et al. [17] addressed a similar problem in the estimation of GA using head circumference by restricting the range of measurements included in the regression analyses. As opposed to their HC data, for which the GA range was 1242 weeks, the INTERGROWTH21^{st} CRL data span only 5 weeks so using CRL data unaffected by truncation leads to a large loss of data and limited clinical usefulness.
Conclusion
Although these approaches do not follow standard statistical analysis paradigms for modelling, we have shown empirically that the results of these rather “ad hoc” statistical methods correspond very closely to the “real data” based on the study of Verburg et al. [2], which is a data set similar to CRL data set of the INTERGROWTH21^{st} project. They are more suitable for large data sets to reduce the effect of sampling variation and ensure reasonable extrapolation. We are thus confident that we can use these approaches to get reliable estimates based on INTERGROWTH21^{st} CRL data. Although only examined for CRL, these methods may be a solution to other truncation problems involving similar data and their applicability to other settings would need to be evaluated.
Details of ethics approval
The INTERGROWTH21^{st} Project was approved by the Oxfordshire Research Ethics Committee ‘C’ (reference:08/H0606/139) and the research ethics committees of the individual participating institutions and corresponding health authorities where the Project was implemented.
Authors’ information
EOO is a Medical Statistician, AT is Senior Fellow in Fetal Medicine, JV is Professor of Perinatal Medicine and Principal Investigator for the INTERGROWTH21^{st} Project and DGA is Professor of Medical Statistics.
Eric O. Ohuma^{1,2}, Aris T. Papageorghiou^{1}, Jose Villar^{1}, and Douglas G Altman^{2}
^{1}Nuffield Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology and Oxford Maternal & Perinatal Health Institute (OMPHI), Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK: for the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH21st Project)
^{2}Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK.
Abbreviations
 INTERGROWTH21st:

The International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21^{st} Century
 GA:

Gestational age
 CRL:

Crownrump length
 LMP:

Last menstrual period
 ISUOG:

International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
 NICE:

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
 FP:

Fractional polynomials
 SD:

Standard deviation.
Declarations
Funding
This Project was supported by the INTERGROWTH21^{st} Grant ID# 49038 from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to the University of Oxford, for which we are very grateful. DGA is supported by a programme grant from Cancer Research UK (C5529). AT is supported by the Oxford Partnership Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre with funding from the Department of Health NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 ISUOG: Practice guidelines: performance of firsttrimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013, 41 (1): 102113.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Verburg BO, Steegers EAP, De Ridder M, Snijders RJM, Smith E, Hofman A, Moll HA, Jaddoe VWV, Witteman JCM: New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy and assessment of fetal growth: longitudinal data from a populationbased cohort study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008, 31 (4): 388396. 10.1002/uog.5225.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Treloar A, Behn BG, Cowan DW: Analysis of gestational interval. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1967, 99: 3445.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Campbell S: The prediction of fetal maturity by ultrasonic measurement of the biparietal diameter. BJOG. 1969, 76 (7): 603609. 10.1111/j.14710528.1969.tb06146.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Campbell S, Warsof SL, Little D, Cooper DJ: Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol. 1985, 65 (5): 613620.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Waldenström U, Axelsson O, Nilsson S: A comparison of the ability of a sonographically measured biparietal diameter and the last menstrual period to predict the spontaneous onset of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1990, 76 (3 Pt 1): 336338.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; Royal College of Physicians of Ireland; Directorate of Quality and Clinical Care: HSE: Ultrasound diagnosis of early pregnancy miscarriage. Clin Pract Guidel. 2010, 47. Version 1. Guideline 1Google Scholar
 Haglund B: Birthweight distributions by gestational age: comparison of LMPbased and ultrasoundbased estimates of gestational age using data from the Swedish Birth Registry. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007, 21: 7278. 10.1111/j.13653016.2007.00863.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Grange G, Pannier E, Goffinet F, Cabrol D, Zorn JR: Dating biometry during the first trimester: accuracy of an everyday practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2000, 88 (1): 6164. 10.1016/S03012115(99)00127X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Dietz PM, England LJ, Callaghan WM, Pearl M, Wier ML, Kharrazi M: A comparison of LMPbased and ultrasoundbased estimates of gestational age using linked California livebirth and prenatal screening records. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007, 21: 6271. 10.1111/j.13653016.2007.00862.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Ioannou C, Talbot K, Ohuma E, Sarris I, Villar J, CondeAgudelo A, et al: Systematic review of methodology used in ultrasound studies aimed at creating charts of fetal size. BJOG. 2012, 119 (12): 14251439. 10.1111/j.14710528.2012.03451.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Duyme M, Buvat I, Ville Y: The impact of choice of reference charts and equations on the assessment of fetal biometry. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005, 25 (6): 559565. 10.1002/uog.1901.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Napolitano R, Dhami J, Ohuma E, Loannou C, Conde Agudelo A, Kennedy S, Villar J, Papageorghiou AT: Systematic review of the methodology used for creating dating charts based on fetal crownrump length. BJOG. 2013, AcceptedGoogle Scholar
 Sladkevicius P, Saltvedt S, Almström H, Kublickas M, Grunewald C, Valentin L: Ultrasound dating at 1214 weeks of gestation. A prospective crossvalidation of established dating formulae in invitro fertilized pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005, 26 (5): 504511. 10.1002/uog.1993.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Sahota DS, Leung TY, Leung TN, Chan OK, Lau TK: Fetal crownrump length and estimation of gestational age in an ethnic Chinese population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009, 33 (2): 157160. 10.1002/uog.6252.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Robinson HP, Fleming JEE: A critical evaluation of sonar crownrump length measurements. BJOG. 1975, 82 (9): 702710. 10.1111/j.14710528.1975.tb00710.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Altman DG, Chitty LS: New charts for ultrasound dating of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1997, 10 (3): 174191. 10.1046/j.14690705.1997.10030174.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Multicentre Growth Reference Study WHO: Assessment of differences in linear growth among populations in the WHO multicentre growth reference study. Acta Paediatr. 2006, 450: 5665.Google Scholar
 Villar J, Altman DG, Purwar M, Noble JA, Knight HE, Ruyan P, et al: The objectives, design and implementation of the multicentre, populationbased, INTERGROWTH21st project. BJOG. 2013, 120: 926.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Altman DG, Chitty LS: Design and analysis of studies to derive charts of fetal size. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1993, 3 (6): 378384. 10.1046/j.14690705.1993.03060378.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Altman DG, Chitty LS: Charts of fetal size: 1. Methodology. BJOG. 1994, 101 (1): 2934. 10.1111/j.14710528.1994.tb13006.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Royston P, Altman DG: Regression using fractional polynomials of continuous covariates: parsimonious parametric modelling. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat. 1994, 43 (3): 429467.Google Scholar
 Kalish RB, Thaler HT, Chasen ST, Gupta M, Berman SJ, Rosenwaks Z, Chervenak FA: Firstand secondtrimester ultrasound assessment of gestational age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004, 191 (3): 975978. 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.053.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Caughey AB, Nicholson JM, Washington AE: First vs secondtrimester ultrasound: the effect on pregnancy dating and perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008, 198 (6): e701e703. e706View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Bennett KA, Crane JMG, O’Shea P, Lacelle J, Hutchens D, Copel JA: First trimester ultrasound screening is effective in reducing postterm labor induction rates: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004, 190 (4): 10771081. 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.09.065.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Royston P, Altman DG: Design and analysis of longitudinal studies of fetal size. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995, 6 (5): 307312. 10.1046/j.14690705.1995.06050307.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 MacGregor SN, Tamura RK, Sabbagha RE, Minogue JP, Gibson ME, Hoffman DI: Underestimation of gestational age by conventional crownrump length dating curves. Obstet Gynecol. 1987, 70 (3 Pt 1): 344348.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Savitz DA, Terry JW, Dole N, Thorp JM, SiegaRiz AM, Herring AH: Comparison of pregnancy dating by last menstrual period, ultrasound scanning, and their combination. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002, 187 (6): 16601666. 10.1067/mob.2002.127601.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Harville EW, Wilcox AJ, Baird DD, Weinberg CR: Vaginal bleeding in very early pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2003, 18 (9): 19441947. 10.1093/humrep/deg379.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bottomley C, Bourne T: Dating and growth in the first trimester. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009, 23 (4): 439452. 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2009.01.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 No Author: Vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy. BMJ. 1980, 281 (6238): 470Google Scholar
 Falco P, Milano V, Pilu G, David C, Grisolia G, Rizzo N, Bovicelli L: Sonography of pregnancies with firsttrimester bleeding and a viable embryo: a study of prognostic indicators by logistic regression analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996, 7 (3): 165169. 10.1046/j.14690705.1996.07030165.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Taipale P, Hiilesmaa V: Predicting delivery date by ultrasound and last menstrual period in early gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2001, 97 (2): 189194. 10.1016/S00297844(00)011315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Geirsson RT: Ultrasound instead of last menstrual period as the basis of gestational age assignment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1991, 1 (3): 212219. 10.1046/j.14690705.1991.01030212.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 The prepublication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/14712288/13/151/prepub
Prepublication history
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.