Search

Objective: To assess in a group of ultrasound operators of various levels of experience the predictive value of systematic quality scoring to assess estimated fetal weight (EFW) validity., Methods: Screenshots, sonographer experience, and neonate birth weight were collected for 131 ultrasound examinations in the 7 days before birth. The difference (EFW error) between projected birth weight (EFW + [30 g × interval in days to birth]) and actual birth weight was then assessed (absolute value). Three senior sonographers rated all the screenshots (International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 16-point score for image quality) and interobserver reproducibility was assessed concomitantly. The impact of the score on EFW accuracy was then assessed (univariate analysis). Receiver operating characteristic curves allowed us to assess the score's positive predictive value (PPV) for accurate EFW., Results: Mean birth weight was 2998 ± 954 g and mean EFW error was 8.6% ± 7.1%. Both the sonographer's experience and score significantly impacted the EFW error (P < 0.05). The PPVs of systematic image scores for identifying an EFW error greater than 10% and greater than 15% were appropriate for clinical use (areas under the curve 0.61 and 0.70, respectively). Score reproducibility was modest., Conclusion: Low image scores and limited ultrasound expertise are associated with an increased risk of inaccurate EFW., (© 2022 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Objectives: To assess the intra- and interobserver reproducibility of fetal biometry measurements obtained by trainee (junior) and experienced sonographers (senior) in the contest of two training programs in obstetric ultrasound., Methods: This was a prospective study on 192 women recruited ensuring an even distribution throughout gestation (18-41 weeks), at University College London Hospital (UCLH), England (87 cases), and at Maternité Regionale Universitaire de Nancy (MRUN), France (105 cases). The training took place in two training centers with experience in ultrasound training and subspecialist training in fetal medicine. Measurements for head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC), and femur length (FL) were obtained twice by junior and senior sonographers, blind to their own and each other's measurements. Differences between and within sonographers were expressed in millimeters and as a percentage of fetal dimensions. Reproducibility was assessed using Bland-Altman plots., Results: Reproducibility was overall high with 95% confidence intervals (CI) within <6% for intraobserver and <8% for interobserver reproducibility. Intraobserver reproducibility was lower within junior than within senior sonographers' measurements for HC (95% CI: <4% versus <3%) and FL (95% CI: <6% and < 5%). Intraobserver reproducibility was similar between the two centers/training programs (AC 95% CI: <6%). Cumulative interobserver reproducibility in both centers was similar to the reproducibility within a single site (95% CI: <5%, <8%, and <7% for HC, AC, and FL, respectively)., Conclusions: Reproducibility of fetal biometry measurement was high in centers with structured training programs regardless of sonographers' experience. Reproducibility was higher in sonographers who completed the training., (© 2022 American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.)