Literature DB >> 33995554

Peer review of third trimester abdominal circumference measurements.

Ellen Dyer1, Trish Chudleigh1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Third trimester growth scans represent a significant proportion of the workload in obstetric ultrasound departments. The objective of these serial growth scans is to improve the antenatal detection of babies with fetal growth restriction. The aim of this paper is to describe a method of peer review for third trimester abdominal circumference measurements which is realistic within busy obstetric ultrasound departments in the UK.
METHOD: Twenty-two, third trimester, measured abdominal circumference images were randomly selected. Images were assessed subjectively by 12 sonographers using the image Criteria Achieved Score. For quantitative assessment, termed the Inter-operator Variability Score, three of the abdominal circumference (AC) images were blindly remeasured. Following this, a questionnaire was used to ascertain which image criteria sonographers considered most important and to reach an agreement on correct caliper placement.
RESULTS: The least frequently met image criteria with the lowest Criteria Achieved Score related to an oblique abdominal circumference section. These included fetal kidney present (Criteria Achieved Score 24.6%), multiple oblique ribs (Criteria Achieved Score 39.4%) and oblique spine (Criteria Achieved Score 37.5%). Caliper placement was also identified as inconsistent. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates that the perfect AC section is not always possible and sonographers use their professional judgement to determine whether an image is acceptable. Seventy-three percent of the images reviewed were of an acceptable standard. There can be inconsistencies in sonographer opinion regarding what is an acceptable third trimester abdominal circumference image. These differences need to be addressed to maximise the effectiveness of the third trimester ultrasound examination.
CONCLUSION: Peer review can be used to monitor scan quality and identify areas of inconsistency.
© The Author(s) 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Obstetric; peer review; third trimester; ultrasound

Year:  2020        PMID: 33995554      PMCID: PMC8083137          DOI: 10.1177/1742271X20954226

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound        ISSN: 1742-271X


  13 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight.

Authors:  N J Dudley
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 7.299

2.  Standardisation and quality control of ultrasound measurements taken in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.

Authors:  I Sarris; C Ioannou; E O Ohuma; D G Altman; L Hoch; C Cosgrove; S Fathima; L J Salomon; A T Papageorghiou
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2013-07-11       Impact factor: 6.531

3.  Which is the most accurate formula to estimate fetal weight in women with severe preterm preeclampsia?

Authors:  Lut Geerts; Tania Widmer
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2011-02

4.  Could masking gestational age estimation during scanning improve detection of small-for-gestational-age fetuses? A controlled pre-post evaluation.

Authors:  Amanda Rowley; Ellen Dyer; James G Scott; Catherine E Aiken
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM       Date:  2019-08-07

5.  Quality control of ultrasound for fetal biometry: results from the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.

Authors:  A Cavallaro; S T Ash; R Napolitano; S Wanyonyi; E O Ohuma; M Molloholli; J Sande; I Sarris; C Ioannou; T Norris; V Donadono; M Carvalho; M Purwar; F C Barros; Y A Jaffer; E Bertino; R Pang; M G Gravett; L J Salomon; J A Noble; D G Altman; A T Papageorghiou
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 7.299

6.  Consensus definition of fetal growth restriction: a Delphi procedure.

Authors:  S J Gordijn; I M Beune; B Thilaganathan; A Papageorghiou; A A Baschat; P N Baker; R M Silver; K Wynia; W Ganzevoort
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 7.299

7.  The accuracy of ultrasound estimation of fetal weight in comparison to birth weight: A systematic review.

Authors:  Julia Milner; Jane Arezina
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2018-02-07

8.  An Audit of Second-Trimester Fetal Anomaly Scans Based on a Novel Image-Scoring Method in the Southwest Region of the Netherlands.

Authors:  Nicolette T C Ursem; Ingrid A Peters; Mieke N Kraan-van der Est; Jacqueline C I Y Reijerink-Verheij; Maarten F C M Knapen; Titia E Cohen-Overbeek
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 2.153

9.  Prediction of adverse perinatal outcome by fetal biometry: comparison of customized and population-based standards.

Authors:  D Kabiri; R Romero; D W Gudicha; E Hernandez-Andrade; P Pacora; N Benshalom-Tirosh; D Tirosh; L Yeo; O Erez; S S Hassan; A L Tarca
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 7.299

10.  Quality-improvement program for ultrasound-based fetal anatomy screening using large-scale clinical audit.

Authors:  M Yaqub; B Kelly; H Stobart; R Napolitano; J A Noble; A T Papageorghiou
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 7.299

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.