Talk:Naegele's rule
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Naegels's rule error with Gregorian months
[edit]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)
Ultrasound
[edit]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)
History
[edit]I recommend replacing
"His "Lehrbuch der Geburtshilfe," published in 1830 for midwives, (...)"
by
"His "Lehrbuch der Geburtshilfe" ("Textbook of Midewifery"), published in 1830, (...)" .
Even if not, the comma after "Geburtshilfe" is in the wrong place.
Greetings, --Ronnie Soak (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
In clinical practice
[edit]The entire section in the article reads like quackery written by someone whose second language is English, and was mainly added by one user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.204.206 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Due date (film)
[edit]Hey all... Did some cleanup on this article tonight, hope that's cool.
There are several articles that link to the article "Due date", which right now is about the 2010 american comedy road trip film. I don't think articles about pregnancy & childbirth intend to link to this. Here's what I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Due_Date
I'm not sure what to do. Do we create an article about due dates? Change the links to point here, or to Gestational age? Move this whole article to one titled something along the lines of "due date" since that's what Naegele's rule is about? --Spacefem (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Mistake in Article
[edit]May 8, 2009 was not a Tuesday -- it was a Friday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.83.6 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)