Mothering Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,307 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
At my last appt with my hb midwife she told me what my "woods" due date was, and it was different from my real EDD. It was a date she had calculated based on the lengths of my previous pregnancies I think. I didn't ask a lot of questions about it and planned to look it up later, but now can't find anything about a "woods" or "woulds" date and don't know how she spelled it.<br><br>
Does anyone know what this is?<br><br>
Thanks,<br>
Tracy
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,518 Posts
subbing...<br><br>
I am curious how this would be calculated because all 4 of my pregnancies have been short (34-38 weeks) and this is a worry of mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
553 Posts
Wood's method:<br>
nullips: LMP + 1 year - 2 months - 14 days, +or- days cycle varies from 28 days<br>
multips: LMP + 1 year - 2 months - 18 days etc . . .<br>
Nichols, Carol Wood, "Postdate Pregnancy, Part II: Clinical Implications," J. of Nurse-Midwifery, Vol. 30, No. 5, Sept/Oct., 1985, pp. 259-268.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
So if my LMP was 8/18/2006 +1 yr would equal 8/18/2007 - 2 months would be 6/18/2007 and then subtracting 14 days from that would make my Wood's Method Due date 6/4/2007? Is that how you do it?<br><br>
If I do the same method, like that, with my dd's dates than her birthdate was far closer to her due date as determined by my LMP in the traditional way than to her Wood's Method date.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
553 Posts
That looks right for a first baby, assuming your cycle is 28 days, otherwise you need to add or subtract extra days. For a second (or more) baby, you subtract 18 instead of 14, then do the adjustment for your cycle.<br><br>
For me though, the whole 40 weeks from lmp seems to be most accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>yeahwhat</strong> <a href="/community/forum/post/7932174"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/community/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Wood's method:<br>
nullips: LMP + 1 year - 2 months - 14 days, +or- days cycle varies from 28 days<br>
multips: LMP + 1 year - 2 months - 18 days etc . . .<br>
Nichols, Carol Wood, "Postdate Pregnancy, Part II: Clinical Implications," J. of Nurse-Midwifery, Vol. 30, No. 5, Sept/Oct., 1985, pp. 259-268.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
just for fun, DS was born on Dec 28, but was "due" on Dec 16/17...according to Wood, however, he wasn't due until the 29th!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
219 Posts
I must be doing something wrong, according to this, I am due October 31??? The baby is measuring to be due October 15!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,265 Posts
Doesn't seem to have worked for me for my last baby. The EDD I gave myself based on when I conceived was 19 Oct. The Woods method puts the EDD at 22 Nov 05. She was born on 30th October, and there is no way in heck she was 3 weeks early! She had several strong signs of being postdates. Maybe I'm still doing my math wrong...
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top