Literature DB >> 22535628

Intra- and interobserver variability in fetal ultrasound measurements.

I Sarris1, C Ioannou, P Chamberlain, E Ohuma, F Roseman, L Hoch, D G Altman, A T Papageorghiou.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess intra- and interobserver variability of fetal biometry measurements throughout pregnancy.
METHODS: A total of 175 scans (of 140 fetuses) were prospectively performed at 14-41 weeks of gestation ensuring an even distribution throughout gestation. From among three experienced sonographers, a pair of observers independently acquired a duplicate set of seven standard measurements for each fetus. Differences between and within observers were expressed in measurement units (mm), as a percentage of fetal dimensions and as gestational age-specific Z-scores. For all comparisons, Bland-Altman plots were used to quantify limits of agreement.
RESULTS: When using measurement units (mm) to express differences, both intra- and interobserver variability increased with gestational age. However, when measurement of variability took into account the increasing fetal size and was expressed as a percentage or Z-score, it remained constant throughout gestation. When expressed as a percentage or Z-score, the 95% limits of agreement for intraobserver difference for head circumference (HC) were ± 3.0% or 0.67; they were ± 5.3% or 0.90 and ± 6.6% or 0.94 for abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL), respectively. The corresponding values for interobserver differences were ± 4.9% or 0.99 for HC, ± 8.8% or 1.35 for AC and ± 11.1% or 1.43 for FL.
CONCLUSIONS: Although intra- and interobserver variability increases with advancing gestation when expressed in millimeters, both are constant as a percentage of the fetal dimensions or when reported as a Z-score. Thus, measurement variability should be considered when interpreting fetal growth rates.
Copyright © 2012 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22535628     DOI: 10.1002/uog.10082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0960-7692            Impact factor:   7.299


  29 in total

1.  Automatic image quality assessment and measurement of fetal head in two-dimensional ultrasound image.

Authors:  Lei Zhang; Nicholas J Dudley; Tryphon Lambrou; Nigel Allinson; Xujiong Ye
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-04-17

2.  Are ultrasound foetal circumference measurement methods interchangeable?

Authors:  Nicholas John Dudley
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2019-03-07

3.  Biparietal diameter measurements using the outer-to-outer versus outer-to-inner measurement: A question of pedantry?

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

4.  Multi-task SonoEyeNet: Detection of Fetal Standardized Planes Assisted by Generated Sonographer Attention Maps.

Authors:  Yifan Cai; Harshita Sharma; Pierre Chatelain; J Alison Noble
Journal:  Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv       Date:  2018-09-26

5.  A comparison of ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of fetal biometry and weight in the second trimester of pregnancy: An observer agreement and variability study.

Authors:  Jacqueline Matthew; Christina Malamateniou; Caroline L Knight; Kelly P Baruteau; Tara Fletcher; Alice Davidson; Laura McCabe; Dharmintra Pasupathy; Mary Rutherford
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2018-01-29

6.  The management of error in ultrasound fetal growth monitoring.

Authors:  Nicholas J Dudley
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2020-08-03

7.  Ultrasound (in)accuracy: it's in the formulae not in the technique - assessment of accuracy of abdominal circumference measurement in term pregnancies.

Authors:  Erin M Nesbitt-Hawes; Emma Tetstall; Kiera Gee; Alec W Welsh
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2015-12-31

8.  Scientific basis for standardization of fetal head measurements by ultrasound: a reproducibility study.

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

9.  Deep Learning strategies for Ultrasound in Pregnancy.

Authors:  Pedro H B Diniz; Yi Yin; Sally Collins
Journal:  Eur Med J Reprod Health       Date:  2020-08-25

10.  Semi-supervised segmentation of ultrasound images based on patch representation and continuous min cut.

Authors:  Anca Ciurte; Xavier Bresson; Olivier Cuisenaire; Nawal Houhou; Sergiu Nedevschi; Jean-Philippe Thiran; Meritxell Bach Cuadra
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.