Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 5, 2026

Mouse Model of Surgical Uterine Injury and Subsequent Pregnancy Outcomes
Published on: June 27, 2025
Discrepancy between pregnancy dating methods affects obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a population-based register
Merit Kullinger1,2, Michaela Granfors3,4, Helle Kieler5
1Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. merit.kullinger@kbh.uu.se.
To assess associations between discrepancy of pregnancy dating methods and adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for discrepancy categories among all singleton births from the Medical Birth Register (1995-2010) with estimated date of delivery (EDD) by last menstrual period (LMP) minus EDD by ultrasound (US) -20 to +20 days. Negative/positive discrepancy was a fetus smaller/larger than expected when dated by US (EDD postponed/changed to an earlier date). Large discrepancy was <10th or >90th percentile. Reference was median discrepancy ±2 days. Odds for diabetes and preeclampsia were higher in pregnancies with negative discrepancy, and for most delivery outcomes in case of large positive discrepancy (+9 to +20 days): shoulder dystocia [OR 1.16 (95% CI 1.01-1.33)] and sphincter injuries [OR 1.13 (95% CI 1.09-1.17)]. Odds for adverse neonatal outcomes were higher in large negative discrepancy (-4 to -20 days): low Apgar score [OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.09-1.27)], asphyxia [OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.11-1.25)], fetal death [OR 1.47 (95% CI 1.32-1.64)], and neonatal death [OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.91-2.50)]. In conclusion, especially, large negative discrepancy was associated with increased risks of adverse perinatal outcomes.
To assess associations between discrepancy of pregnancy dating methods and adverse pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for discrepancy categories among all singleton births from the Medical Birth Register (1995-2010) with estimated date of delivery (EDD) by last menstrual period (LMP) minus EDD by ultrasound (US) -20 to +20 days. Negative/positive discrepancy was a fetus smaller/larger than expected when dated by US (EDD postponed/changed to an earlier date). Large discrepancy was <10th or >90th percentile. Reference was median discrepancy ±2 days. Odds for diabetes and preeclampsia were higher in pregnancies with negative discrepancy, and for most delivery outcomes in case of large positive discrepancy (+9 to +20 days): shoulder dystocia [OR 1.16 (95% CI 1.01-1.33)] and sphincter injuries [OR 1.13 (95% CI 1.09-1.17)]. Odds for adverse neonatal outcomes were higher in large negative discrepancy (-4 to -20 days): low Apgar score [OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.09-1.27)], asphyxia [OR 1.18 (95% CI 1.11-1.25)], fetal death [OR 1.47 (95% CI 1.32-1.64)], and neonatal death [OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.91-2.50)]. In conclusion, especially, large negative discrepancy was associated with increased risks of adverse perinatal outcomes.
Related Concept Videos
Self-Discrepancy and Its Effects
Self-Discrepancy Theory
Radioactive Decay and Radiometric Dating
What is Population Genetics?
What are Populations and Communities?
Conservation of Small Populations

