Debra Paoletti1,2, Lillian Smyth1, Susan Westerway3, Jon Hyett4,5, Ritu Mogra4, Stephen Haslett6,7, Michael Peek1,2. 1. ANU Medical School College of Health and Medicine The Australian National University Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia. 2. Centenary Hospital for Women and Children The Canberra Hospital Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia. 3. Faculty of Dentistry & Health Sciences Charles Sturt University Wagga Wagga New South Wales Australia. 4. RPA Women and Babies Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Camperdown New South Wales Australia. 5. Discipline of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology Faculty of Medicine University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia. 6. Research School of Finance Actuarial Studies and Statistics The Australian National University Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia. 7. Centre for Public Health Research Massey University Wellington New Zealand.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inconsistent reporting practices in third trimester ultrasound, the choice of reference charts in particular, have the potential to misdiagnose abnormal fetal growth. But this may lead to unnecessary anxiety and confusion amongst patients and clinicians and ultimately influence clinical management. Therefore, we sought to determine the extent of variability in choice of fetal biometry and Doppler reference charts and reporting practices in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: Clinicians performing and/or reporting obstetric ultrasound were invited to answer questions about fetal biometry and Doppler charts in a web-based survey. RESULTS: At least four population-based charts are in current use. The majority of respondents (78%) report the percentile for known gestational age (GA) alongside measurements and 63% using a cut-off of estimated fetal weight (EFW) < 10th percentile when reporting small for gestational age (SGA) and/or fetal growth restriction (FGR). The thresholds for the use of fetal and maternal Doppler in third trimester ultrasound varied in terms of the GA, EFW cut-off, and how measures were reported. The majority of respondents were not sure of which Doppler charts were used in their practice. CONCLUSION: This survey revealed inconsistencies in choice of reference chart and reporting practices. The potential for misdiagnosis of abnormal fetal growth remains a significant issue.
INTRODUCTION: Inconsistent reporting practices in third trimester ultrasound, the choice of reference charts in particular, have the potential to misdiagnose abnormal fetal growth. But this may lead to unnecessary anxiety and confusion amongst patients and clinicians and ultimately influence clinical management. Therefore, we sought to determine the extent of variability in choice of fetal biometry and Doppler reference charts and reporting practices in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: Clinicians performing and/or reporting obstetric ultrasound were invited to answer questions about fetal biometry and Doppler charts in a web-based survey. RESULTS: At least four population-based charts are in current use. The majority of respondents (78%) report the percentile for known gestational age (GA) alongside measurements and 63% using a cut-off of estimated fetal weight (EFW) < 10th percentile when reporting small for gestational age (SGA) and/or fetal growth restriction (FGR). The thresholds for the use of fetal and maternal Doppler in third trimester ultrasound varied in terms of the GA, EFW cut-off, and how measures were reported. The majority of respondents were not sure of which Doppler charts were used in their practice. CONCLUSION: This survey revealed inconsistencies in choice of reference chart and reporting practices. The potential for misdiagnosis of abnormal fetal growth remains a significant issue.
Authors: Kristen Gibbons; Michael Beckmann; Vicki Flenady; Dominique Rossouw; Glenn Gardener; Kassam Mahomed; Peter H Gray; Paul Devenish-Meares Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: Ceara Tess Cunningham; Hude Quan; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Tom Noseworthy; Cynthia A Beck; Elijah Dixon; Susan Samuel; William A Ghali; Lindsay L Sykes; Nathalie Jetté Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Victoria J King; Laura Bennet; Peter R Stone; Alys Clark; Alistair J Gunn; Simerdeep K Dhillon Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 4.755