Analysis of Z-score distribution for the quality control of fetal ultrasound measurements at 20-24 weeks

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 26, Issue 7, 2005, Pages 750-754

  Salomon, L J ^a   Bernard, J P ^a   Ville, Y ^a  

^a CENTRE HOSPITALIER INTERCOMMUNAL   (France)

Author keywords

Fetal biometry; Quality assessment; Sonographer; Ultrasound; Z score

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; FEMUR; FETUS; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEAD CIRCUMFERENCE; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SCORING SYSTEM;

ABDOMEN; ANTHROPOMETRY; CEPHALOMETRY; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; FEMUR; FETUS; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; REFERENCE VALUES; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 29144433601     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.2640     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Snijders RJ, Noble P, Sebire N, Souka A, Nicolaides KH. UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal-translucency thickness at 10-14 weeks of gestation. Fetal Medicine Foundation First Trimester Screening Group. Lancet 1998; 352: 343-346.
2. Snijders RJ, Thom EA, Zachary JM, Platt LD, Greene N, Jackson LG, Sabbagha RE, Filkins K, Silver RK, Hogge WA, Ginsberg NA, Beverly S, Morgan P, Blum K, Chilis P, Hill LM, Hecker J, Wapner RJ. First-trimester trisomy screening: nuchal translucency measurement training and quality assurance to correct and unify technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 353-359.
3. Anderson N, Boswell O, Duff G. Prenatal sonography for the detection of fetal anomalies: results of a prospective study and comparison with prior series. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 165: 943-950.
4. Degani S. Fetal biometry: clinical, pathological, and technical considerations. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001; 56: 159-167.
5. Perni SC, Chervenak FA, Kalish RB, Magherini-Rothe S, Predanic M, Streltzoff J, Skupski DW. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of fetal biometry. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 654-658.
6. Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Duyme M, Buvat I, Ville Y. The impact of choice of reference charts and equations on the assessment of fetal biometry. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 559-565.
7. Dudley NJ, Chapman E. The importance of quality management in fetal measurement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 190-196.
8. Wisser J, Dirschedl P, Krone S. Estimation of gestational age by transvaginal sonographic measurement of greatest embryonic length in dated human embryos. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994; 4: 457-462.
9. Snijders RJM, Nicolaides KH. Fetal biometry at 14-40 weeks' gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994; 4: 34-48.
10. Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S. Charts of fetal size: 2. Head measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; 101: 35-43.
11. Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S. Charts of fetal size: 4. Femur length. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; 101: 132-135.
12. Campbell S, Thorns A. Ultrasound measurement of the fetal head to abdomen circumference ratio in the assessment of growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1977; 84: 165-174.
13. Campbell S, Wilkin D. Ultrasonic measurement of fetal abdomen circumference in the estimation of fetal weight. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1975; 82: 689-697.
14. Altman DG, Chitty LS. Charts of fetal size: 1. Methodology. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994; 101: 29-34.
15. Rosenthal R. An application of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with estimated mean and variance. Psychol Rep 1968; 22: 570.
16. Ong LD, LeClare PC. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the log-normality of sample cumulative frequency distributions. Health Phys 1968; 14: 376.
17. Wright EM, Royston P. Simplified estimation of age-specific reference intervals for skewed data. Stat Med 1997; 16: 2785-2803.
18. Tabor A, Philip J, Madsen M, Bang J, Obel EB, Norgaard-Pedersen B. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1986; 1: 1287-1293.
19. Vintzileos AM, Egan JF. Adjusting the risk for trisomy 21 on the basis of second-trimester ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 837-844.
20. Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Duyme M, Doris B, Mas N, Ville Y. Feasibility and reproducibility of an image scoring method for quality control of fetal biometry in the second trimester. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; in press.
21. WHO physical status: the use and interpretation of biometry. WHO Technical Report Series No 854, Report of a WHO Expert Committee. World Health Organization: Geneva, 1995.
22. Minior VK, Divon MY. Fetal growth restriction at term: myth or reality? Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92: 57-60.
23. Mulik V, Usha Kiran TS, Bethal J, Bhal PS. The outcome of macrosomic fetuses in a low risk primigravid population. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 80: 15-22.
24. Chang T, Robson SC, Boys R, Spencer JA. Prediction of small for gestational age infant: which ultrasonic measurement is best? Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80: 1030-1037.
25. David C, Tagliavini G, Pilu G, Rudenholz A, Bovicelli L. Receiver-operator characteristic curves for the ultrasonographic prediction of small-for-gestational age fetuses in low-risk pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174: 1037-1042.
26. Hedriana HL, Moore TR. A comparison of single versus multiple growth ultrasonographic examinations in predicting birth weight. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170: 1600-1604; Discussion 1604-1606.
27. Larsen T, Larsen J, Petersen S, Greisen G. Detection of small for gestational age fetuses by ultrasound screening in a high risk population: a randomized controlled study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 469-474.