Quality control of prenatal ultrasound

Ultrasound Review of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 297-303

  Salomon, L J ^a   Ville, Yves ^a  

^a CENTRE HOSPITALIER INTERCOMMUNAL   (France)

Author keywords

Fetal biometry; Prenatal ultrasound; Quality control

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; FETUS; FETUS DISEASE; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; NUCHAL TRANSLUCENCY MEASUREMENT; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS;

EID: 33646406597     PISSN: 14722240     EISSN: 17438950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14722240500415419     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. ACOG. (2004) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 58. Ultrasonography in pregnancy Obstet Gynecol, 104(6), pp. 1449-1458.
2. Levi, S. (2002) Ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis: Polemics around routine ultrasound screening for second trimester fetal malformations Prenat Diagn, 22(4), pp. 285-295.
3. Anderson, N and Boswell, O and Duff, G. (1995) Prenatal sonography for the detection of fetal anomalies: Results of a prospective study and comparison with prior series AJR Am J Roentgenol, 165(4), pp. 943-950.
4. Ritchie, K and Bradbury, I and Slattery, J and Wright, D and Iqbal, K and Penney, G. (2005) Economic modelling of antenatal screening and ultrasound scanning programmes for identification of fetal abnormalities Bjog, 112(7), pp. 866-874.
5. Roberts, T and Henderson, J and Mugford, M and Bricker, L and Neilson, J and Garcia, J. (2002) Antenatal ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities: A systematic review of studies of cost and cost effectiveness Bjog, 109(1), pp. 44-56.
6. Sabbagha, R and Sheikh, Z and Tamura, R and DalCompo, S and Simpson, J and Depp, R and Gerbie, A. (1985) Predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity of ultrasonic targeted imaging for fetal anomalies in gravid women at high risk for birth defects Am J Obstet Gynecol, 152(7 Pt 1), pp. 822-827.
7. Dudley, N and Chapman, E. (2002) The importance of quality management in fetal measurement Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 19(2), pp. 190-196.
8. Wojdemann, K and Christiansen, M and Sundberg, K and Larsen, S and Shalmi, A and Tabor, A. (2001) Quality assessment in prospective nuchal translucency screening for Down syndrome Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 18(6), pp. 641-644.
9. Snijders, R and Thom, E and Zachary, J and Platt, L and Greene, N and Jackson, L and Sabbagha, R and Filkins, K and Silver, R and Hogge, W et al. (2002) First-trimester trisomy screening: Nuchal translucency measurement training and quality assurance to correct and unify technique Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 19(4), pp. 353-359.
10. Herman, A and Maymon, R and Dreazen, E and Caspi, E and Bukovsky, I and Weinraub, Z. (1998) Nuchal translucency audit: A novel image-scoring method Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 12(6), pp. 398-403.
11. Herman, A and Maymon, R and Dreazen, E and Zohav, E and Segal, O and Segal, S and Weinraub, Z. (1999) Utilization of the nuchal translucency image-scoring method during training of new examiners Fetal Diagn Ther, 14(4), pp. 234-239.
12. Snijders, R and Noble, P and Sebire, N and Souka, A and Nicolaides, K. (1998) 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, 352(9125), pp. 343-346.
13. Tabor, A and Philip, J and Madsen, M and Bang, J and Obel, E and Norgaard-Pedersen, B. (1986) Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women Lancet, 1(8493), pp. 1287-1293.
14. RCOG.(1997) Recommendations arising from the 32nd Study Group: Screening for Down syndrome in the first trimester. In Screening for Down Syndrome in the First Trimester. (pp. 353-356). London: RCOG Press.
15. Herma, A and Dreazen, E and Maymon, R and Tovbin, Y and Bukovsky, I and Weinraub, Z. (1999) Implementation of nuchal translucency image-scoring method during ongoing audit Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 14(6), pp. 388-392.
16. Herman, A and Maymon, R and Dreazen, E and Caspi, E and Bukovsky, I and Weinraub, Z. (1998) Image magnification does not contribute to the repeatability of caliper placement in measuring nuchal translucency thickness Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 11(4), pp. 266-270.
17. Salomon, L and Bernard, J and Ville, Y. (2005) Analysis of z score distribution for the quality control of fetal ultrasound measurements at 20-24 weeks' Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. Submitted.
18. Salomon, L and Bernard, J and Duyme, M and Buvat, I and Ville, Y. (2005) The impact of choice of reference charts and equations on the assessment of fetal biometry Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 25(6), pp. 559-565.
19. Salomon, L and Bernard, J and Duyme, M and Doris, B and Mas, N and Ville, Y. (2005) Feasibility and reproducibility of an image scoring method for quality control of fetal biometry in the second trimester Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. in press
20. Williams, K and Wittmann, B and Dansereau, J. (1993) Intraobserver reliability of amniotic fluid volume estimation by two techniques: amniotic fluid index vs. maximum vertical pocket Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 3(5), pp. 346-349.
21. Kanellopoulos, V and Katsetos, C and Economides, D. (2003) Examination of fetal nasal bone and repeatability of measurement in early pregnancy Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 22(2), pp. 131-134.
22. Kiserud, T and Saito, T and Ozaki, T and Rasmussen, S and Hanson, M. (1999) Validation of diameter measurements by ultrasound: Intraobserver and interobserver variations assessed in vitro and in fetal sheep Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 13(1), pp. 52-57.
23. Zimmer, E and Chao, C and Abramovich, G and Timor-Tritsch, I. (1992) Fetal stomach measurements: Not reproducible by the same observer J Ultrasound Med, 11(12), pp. 663-665.
24. Senat, M and Bernard, J and Boulvain, M and Ville, Y. (2003) Intra- and interoperator variability in fetal nasal bone assessment at 11-14 weeks of gestation Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 22(2), pp. 138-141.
25. Perni, S and Chervenak, F and Kalish, R and Magherini-Rothe, S and Predanic, M and Streltzoff, J and Skupski, D. (2004) Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of fetal biometry Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 24(6), pp. 654-658.
26. Snijders, R and Nicolaides, K. (1994) Fetal biometry at 14-40 weeks' gestation Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 4, pp. 34-48.
27. Chitty, L and Altman, D and Henderson, A and Campbell, S. (1994) Charts of fetal size: 2. Head measurements Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 101(1), pp. 35-43.
28. Chitty, L and Altman, D and Henderson, A and Campbell, S. (1994) Charts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 101(2), pp. 125-131.
29. Chitty, L and Altman, D and Henderson, A and Campbell, S. (1994) Charts of fetal size: 4. Femur length Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 101(2), pp. 132-135.
30. Kurmanavicius, J and Wright, E and Royston, P and Wisser, J and Huch, R and Huch, A and Zimmermann, R. (1999) Fetal ultrasound biometry: 1. Head reference values Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 106(2), pp. 126-135.
31. Kurmanavicius, J and Wright, E and Royston, P and Zimmermann, R and Huch, R and Huch, A and Wisser, J. (1999) Fetal ultrasound biometry: 2. Abdomen and femur length reference values Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 106(2), pp. 136-143.
32. Vintzileos, A and Egan, J. (1995) Adjusting the risk for trisomy 21 on the basis of second-trimester ultrasonography Am J Obstet Gynecol, 172(3), pp. 837-844.
33. Spencer, K and Bindra, R and Nix, A and Heath, V and Nicolaides, K. (2003) Delta-NT or NT MoM: Which is the most appropriate method for calculating accurate patient-specific risks for trisomy 21 in the first trimester? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 22(2), pp. 142-148.
34. WHO.(1995) Physical status: The use and interpretation of biometry. In World Health Organization.. Geneva: WHO.
35. Hadlock, F and Harrist, R and Sharman, R and Deter, R and Park, S. (1985) Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements - a prospective study Am J Obstet Gynecol, 151(3), pp. 333-337.
36. Owen, P and Donnet, M and Ogston, S and Christie, A and Howie, P and Patel, N. (1996) Standards for ultrasound fetal growth velocity Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 103(1), pp. 60-69.
37. Owen, P and Harrold, A and Farrell, T. (1997) Fetal size and growth velocity in the prediction of intrapartum caesarean section for fetal distress Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 104(4), pp. 445-449.
38. Campbell, S and Thoms, A. (1977) Ultrasound measurement of the fetal head to abdomen circumference ratio in the assessment of growth retardation Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 84(3), pp. 165-174.
39. Chervenak, F and Jeanty, P and Cantraine, F and Chitkara, U and Venus, I and Berkowitz, R and Hobbins, J. (1984) The diagnosis of fetal microcephaly Am J Obstet Gynecol, 149(5), pp. 512-517.
40. Kurtz, A and Goldberg, B.(1988) Obstetrical Measurements in Ultrasound: A Reference Manual. Chicago: Y.B.M.P. Inc..
41. Gardosi, J and Chang, A and Kalyan, B and Sahota, D and Symonds, E. (1992) Customised antenatal growth charts Lancet, 339(8788), pp. 283-287.
42. Gardosi, J and Mongelli, M and Wilcox, M and Chang, A. (1995) An adjustable fetal weight standard Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 6(3), pp. 168-174.
43. Okada, F and Sagami, F and Tirone, P and Morisetti, A and Bussi, S and Baguley, J. (1999) [Reproductive and developmental toxicity study of gadobenate dimeglumine formulation (E7155) (1) - Fertility study in male rats by intravenous administration] J Toxicol Sci, 24(Suppl 1), pp. 61-69.
44. Owen, P and Khan, K. (1998) Fetal growth velocity in the prediction of intrauterine growth retardation in a low risk population Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 105(5), pp. 536-540.
45. Salomon, L and Bernard, J and Duyme, M and Dorion, A and Ville, Y. (2003) Revisiting first-trimester fetal biometry Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 22(1), pp. 63-66.
46. Salomon, L and Bernard, J and Nizard, J and Ville, Y. (2005) First-trimester screening for fetal triploidy at 11 to 14 weeks: A role for fetal biometry Prenat Diagn, 25(6), pp. 479-483.