I've been wondering what the distribution of baby's births are relative to their Estimated Due Date (EDD). I've been searching for a daily granularity so I can see the cumulative chance of when a baby is likely to arrive by a certain date. Unfortunately I have been unable to find such data. I know that it has to exist, because I found some data according to week.
The thing that I found most interesting was that the USA new national average gestation time is 39 weeks instead of the traditional 40 weeks. March of Dimes recently published an article entitled "Typical Pregnancy is Now Only 39 Weeks." After looking at several studies, it appears that statistically for a white, singleton, first-time mother, Lindsey should be born between March 23-March 30.
Everyone keeps telling us that Lindsey will be 3 weeks late, and she will be born early morning around 3 a.m.(we do have a lot of rather cruel friends who secretly wish such vileness on us). However Utah and National averages are telling a different story-that the waiting might be over much sooner than we anticipated.
Of course that is assuming that Lindsey is typical, and we all know that is NOT true!
The thing that I found most interesting was that the USA new national average gestation time is 39 weeks instead of the traditional 40 weeks. March of Dimes recently published an article entitled "Typical Pregnancy is Now Only 39 Weeks." After looking at several studies, it appears that statistically for a white, singleton, first-time mother, Lindsey should be born between March 23-March 30.
Everyone keeps telling us that Lindsey will be 3 weeks late, and she will be born early morning around 3 a.m.(we do have a lot of rather cruel friends who secretly wish such vileness on us). However Utah and National averages are telling a different story-that the waiting might be over much sooner than we anticipated.
Of course that is assuming that Lindsey is typical, and we all know that is NOT true!
4 comments:
Possibly interesting... I read the article from March of Dimes and was glad to see that they acknowledged the increase in induction and planned c-section births. You can't truely analyze or compare gestational age without taking that into account... they said they didn't think it contributed to the total average decrease in earlier births, but that basically means they don't know (inductions and planned c-sections have gone up A LOT)... plus you would have to calculate in doctor error in picking due dates, based on which mothers got conclusive sonograms to more accurately decide age and also consider gestational length compared to amount/type of prenatal care etc.... way too many variables which is why there isn't conclusive numbers on the issue.
I don't wish 3 weeks late in the middle of the night on Melissa (and you). I am sticking with my "guesstimate". Good luck!
Plus after accounting for inductions/c-sections the difference may not even be statistically significant, even if there is a difference in the average
However, I do not believe that planned c-sections and early inductions have gone up over 21%. They obviously contributed, but I don't believe that much.
Who would be so cruel as to tell you your baby would be three weeks late? That's about the worst thing you could tell somebody. Who's house should I egg?
Post a Comment