Online evaluation of fetal second-trimester four-chamber view images: A comparison of six evaluation methods

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 185-190

  Jaudi, S ^a,b   Tezenas Du Montcel, S ^c,d   Fries, N ^b   Nizard, J ^a,d   Halley Desfontaines, V ^d   Dommergues, M ^a,b,d  

^a PITIÉ SALPÊTRIÈRE HOSPITAL   (France)

^b Collège Français d'Echographie Fætale ^*  (France)

^c ASSISTANCE PUBLIQUE HÔPITAUX DE PARIS   (France)

^d SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

Author keywords

audit; cardiac; echocardiography; fetus; quality control; score; screening; ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONGENITAL HEART MALFORMATION; ECHOGRAPHY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; FETUS HEART; FOUR DIMENSIONAL ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; GESTATIONAL AGE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DEVELOPMENT; SECOND TRIMESTER PREGNANCY;

ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY, FOUR-DIMENSIONAL; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; FEMALE; FETAL HEART; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEART DEFECTS, CONGENITAL; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, SECOND; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 80051772118     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: 14690705     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/uog.8941     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. AIUM Practice Guideline for the performance of an antepartum obstetric ultrasound examination. J Ultrasound Med 2003; 22: 1116-1125.
2. I nternational Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. Cardiac screening examination of the fetus: guidelines for performing the 'basic' and 'extended basic' cardiac scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 107-113.
3. Dommergues M, Bessis R, Henrion R,; CNTEDP. [Report of the French Comité national technique de l'échographie de dépistage prénatal (prenatal ultrasound): what are the practical consequences?]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2006; 34: 1090-1095. (Pubitemid 44829982)
4. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Women's Health Guidelines 2000; Ultrasound screening. [Accessed 9 October 2010].
5. Sureau C, Henrion R,. Rapport du Comité National Technique de l'Echographie de Dépistage Prénatal, 2005; [Accessed 9 October 2010].
6. Garne E, Loane M, Dolk H, De Vigan C, Scarano G, Tucker D, Stoll C, Gener B, Pierini A, Nelen V, Rosch C, Gillerot Y, Feijoo M, Tincheva R, Queisser-Luft A, Addor M-C, Mosquera C, Gatt M, Barisic I,. Prenatal diagnosis of severe structural congenital malformations in Europe. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 6-11. (Pubitemid 40128896)
7. Carvalho JS, Mavrides E, Shinebourne EA, Campbell S, Thilaganathan B,. Improving the effectiveness of routine prenatal screening for major congenital heart defects. Heart 2002; 88: 387-391.
8. Tegnander E, Eik-Nes SH,. The examiner's ultrasound experience has a significant impact on the detection rate of congenital heart defects at the second-trimester fetal examination. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 8-14. (Pubitemid 44133446)
9. Sairam S, Awadh AM, Cook K, Papageorghiou AT, Carvalho JS,. Impact of audit of routine second-trimester cardiac images using a novel image-scoring method. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 545-551.
10. Salomon LJ, Winer N, Bernard JP, Ville Y,. A score-based method for quality control of fetal images at routine second-trimester ultrasound examination. Prenat Diagn 2008; 28: 822-827.
11. rd edn). John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2003.
12. Conger AJ,. Integration and generalization of kappas for multiple reviewers. Psychol Bull 1980; 88: 322-328.
13. 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 2006; 27: 34-40. (Pubitemid 43129088)
14. Zwick R,. Another look at interreviewer agreement. Psychol Bull 1988; 103: 374-378.
15. Bloch DA, Kraemer HC,. 2 Ã - 2 kappa coefficients: measures of agreement or association. Biometrics 1989; 45: 269-287. (Pubitemid 19109173)
16. Hoehler FK,. Bias and prevalence effects on kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 499-503. (Pubitemid 30254346)
17. Lantz CA, Nebenzahl E,. Behavior and interpretation of the kappa statistic: resolution of the two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 431-434. (Pubitemid 26149667)
18. Soeken KL, Prescott PA,. Issues in the use of kappa to estimate reliability. Med Care 1986; 24: 733-741.
19. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB,. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 423-429. (Pubitemid 23194263)
20. Herman A, Maymon R, Dreazen E, Caspi E, Bukovsky I, Weinraub Z,. Nuchal translucency audit: a novel image-scoring method. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12: 398-403. (Pubitemid 29034208)
21. 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. (Pubitemid 28352196)
22. Fries N, Althuser M, Fontanges M, Talmant C, Jouk PS, Tindel M, Duyme M,. Quality control of an image-scoring method for nuchal translucency ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196: 272.e1-5.