L W Chan1, T Y Fung, T Y Leung, D S Sahota, T K Lau. 1. Fetal Medicine Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. danielchan@cuhk.edu.hk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the inter- and intraobserver variation of fetal biometric measurements utilizing two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound imaging. METHODS: This prospective study, utilizing three pairs of doctors trained in sonography, evaluated singleton pregnancies in the mid-trimester. Measurements of the biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) were taken in duplicate by each doctor using 2D imaging and then again using 3D volume datasets. Each set of paired doctors evaluated 12 patients. Inter- and intraobserver variation were calculated as the SD of the difference between paired measurements performed by the doctor pairs and by the individual doctors, respectively. Bland-Altman plots were used to visually compare measurement bias and agreement by 2D and 3D methods. RESULTS: Inter- and intraobserver variation for 2D and 3D ultrasound were small. The intraobserver variation of HC, AC and FL was significantly lower for 3D compared with 2D ultrasound. Interobserver variation was not significantly different when measured with 2D and 3D ultrasound, with the exception of FL, which was lower when measured with 3D ultrasound. The Bland-Altman plots showed that in 95% of the measurements, the percentage difference between 2D and 3D ultrasound techniques was within 5.3%, 4.6%, 9.6% and 9.6% for BPD, HC, AC and FL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 2D and 3D fetal biometric measurements are reproducible. The use of 3D ultrasound significantly reduces intraobserver variation for HC, AC and FL and reduces interobserver variation for FL. (c) 2009 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the inter- and intraobserver variation of fetal biometric measurements utilizing two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound imaging. METHODS: This prospective study, utilizing three pairs of doctors trained in sonography, evaluated singleton pregnancies in the mid-trimester. Measurements of the biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) were taken in duplicate by each doctor using 2D imaging and then again using 3D volume datasets. Each set of paired doctors evaluated 12 patients. Inter- and intraobserver variation were calculated as the SD of the difference between paired measurements performed by the doctor pairs and by the individual doctors, respectively. Bland-Altman plots were used to visually compare measurement bias and agreement by 2D and 3D methods. RESULTS: Inter- and intraobserver variation for 2D and 3D ultrasound were small. The intraobserver variation of HC, AC and FL was significantly lower for 3D compared with 2D ultrasound. Interobserver variation was not significantly different when measured with 2D and 3D ultrasound, with the exception of FL, which was lower when measured with 3D ultrasound. The Bland-Altman plots showed that in 95% of the measurements, the percentage difference between 2D and 3D ultrasound techniques was within 5.3%, 4.6%, 9.6% and 9.6% for BPD, HC, AC and FL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 2D and 3D fetal biometric measurements are reproducible. The use of 3D ultrasound significantly reduces intraobserver variation for HC, AC and FL and reduces interobserver variation for FL. (c) 2009 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: Christian F Baumgartner; Konstantinos Kamnitsas; Jacqueline Matthew; Tara P Fletcher; Sandra Smith; Lisa M Koch; Bernhard Kainz; Daniel Rueckert Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Lufee Wong; Eldho Paul; Hamsaveni Km Murday; Jing Fang; Ilona Lavender; Peter R Coombs; Mark Teoh Journal: Australas J Ultrasound Med Date: 2018-04-16
Authors: Romy Steenbeek; Antonius Jm Schellart; Henny Mulders; Johannes R Anema; Herman Kroneman; Jan Besseling Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-01-03 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Antonius J M Schellart; Romy Steenbeek; Henny P G Mulders; Johannes R Anema; Herman Kroneman; Jan J M Besseling Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: R Napolitano; V Donadono; E O Ohuma; C L Knight; S Z Wanyonyi; B Kemp; T Norris; A T Papageorghiou Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 7.299