Talk:Naegele's rule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| Start | This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale |
[edit] Naegels's rule error with Gregorian months
In case editors wish to check, the rule miscalculates due to unequal lengths of the months. This is also affected by leap years(*) adding an extra day to the year.
| Year | Month of the LMP Naegele overestimation of EDD |
Number of months out by (days) |
||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| 2006 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 2007 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 1 |
| 2008* | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| 2009 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Use of a pregnancy wheel overcomes the monthly variation of Naegels's rule, but one must still manually adjust for leap years. Both the rule and pregnancy wheels (or computer programs to calculate) must also be manually corrected for regular menstrual cycles that are not the average assumed default of 28 days. David Ruben Talk 03:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ultrasound
I removed the section relating to ultrasound being used for accurate dating as it was unreferenced and made a range of claims about the accuracy of ultrasound dating that I understand is contentious. I am happy for it to be reinstated if it is properly referenced. Gillyweed 21:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was referenced - data on accuracy of estimating gestation age at various stages of pregnency by ultrasound is given in the reference section - and there is only one to choose from (eMedicine article). Wikipedia is not about absolute thruth of Scientific Point Of View (WP:SPOV), but current accepted knowledge, which I think the eMedicine article largely reflects - the details are therefore properly referenced in teh Reference Section. If you feel that ultrasound dating "is contentious" (and no one claims absolute accuracy), then this is a point of view that in itself would need to be sourced. David Ruben Talk 01:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
