Quality control of prenatal ultrasound

References

• ACOG, ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 58. Ultrasonography in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104(6):1449–1458.
   Google Scholar
• Levi S. Ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis: polemics around routine ultrasound screening for second trimester fetal malformations. Prenat Diagn 2002;22(4):285–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(4):943–950.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ritchie K, Bradbury I, Slattery J, Wright D, Iqbal K, Penney G. Economic modelling of antenatal screening and ultrasound scanning programmes for identification of fetal abnormalities. Bjog 2005;112(7):866–874.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts T, Henderson J, Mugford M, Bricker L, Neilson J, Garcia J. Antenatal ultrasound screening for fetal abnormal- ities: a systematic review of studies of cost and cost effectiveness. Bjog 2002;109(1):44–56.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sabbagha RE, Sheikh Z, Tamura RK, DalCompo S, Simpson JL, Depp R, Gerbie AB. 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 1985; 152 (7 Pt 1): 822–827.
   Google Scholar
• Dudley NJ, Chapman E. The importance of quality manage- ment in fetal measurement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;19(2):190–196.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wojdemann KR, Christiansen M, Sundberg K, Larsen SO, Shalmi A, Tabor A. Quality assessment in prospective nuchal translucency screening for Down syndrome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18(6):641–644.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snijders RJ, Thom EA, Zachary JM, Platt LD, Greene N, Jackson LG, Sabbagha RE, Filkins K, Silver RK, Hogge WA, et al. First-trimester trisomy screening: nuchal translucency measurement training and quality assurance to correct and unify technique. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;19(4):353– 359.
   Google Scholar
• 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(6):398–403.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Herman A, Maymon R, Dreazen E, Zohav E, Segal O, Segal S, Weinraub Z. Utilization of the nuchal translucency image- scoring method during training of new examiners. Fetal Diagn Ther 1999;14(4):234–239.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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(9125): 343–346.
   Google Scholar
• Tabor A, Philip J, Madsen M, Bang J, Obel EB, Norgaard- Pedersen B. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amnio- centesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1986; 1(8493): 1287–1293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RCOG. Recommendations arising from the 32nd Study Group: Screening for Down syndrome in the first trimester. In: Grudzinskas JG, Cuckle H, Chard T, Chapman MG, editors. Screening for Down Syndrome in the First Trimester. London: RCOG Press; 1997. pp 353–356.
   Google Scholar
• Herma A, Dreazen E, Maymon R, Tovbin Y, Bukovsky I, Weinraub Z. Implementation of nuchal translucency image- scoring method during ongoing audit. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;14(6):388–392.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Herman A, Maymon R, Dreazen E, Caspi E, Bukovsky I, Weinraub Z. Image magnification does not contribute to the repeatability of caliper placement in measuring nuchal translucency thickness. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 11(4):266–270.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Ville Y. Analysis of z score distribution for the quality control of fetal ultrasound measurements at 20-24 weeks’. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;Submitted.
   Google Scholar
• 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(6):559–565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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).
   Google Scholar
• Williams K, Wittmann B, Dansereau J. Intraobserver relia- bility of amniotic fluid volume estimation by two techniques: amniotic fluid index vs. maximum vertical pocket. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993;3(5):346–349.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kanellopoulos V, Katsetos C, Economides DL. Examination of fetal nasal bone and repeatability of measurement in early pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;22(2):131–134.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kiserud T, Saito T, Ozaki T, Rasmussen S, Hanson MA. Validation of diameter measurements by ultrasound: intraob- server and interobserver variations assessed in vitro and in fetal sheep. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13(1):52–57.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zimmer EZ, Chao CR, Abramovich G, Timor-Tritsch IE. Fetal stomach measurements: not reproducible by the same observer. J Ultrasound Med 1992;11(12):663–665.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Senat MV, Bernard JP, Boulvain M, Ville Y. Intra- and interoperator variability in fetal nasal bone assessment at 11–14 weeks of gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;22(2):138–141.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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(6):654–658.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snijders RJM, Nicolaides KH. Fetal biometry at 14–40 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994;4:34–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S. Charts of fetal size: 2. Head measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101(1):35–43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S. Charts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101(2):125–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chitty LS, Altman DG, Henderson A, Campbell S. Charts of fetal size: 4. Femur length. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101(2):132–135.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kurmanavicius J, Wright EM, Royston P, Wisser J, Huch R, Huch A, Zimmermann R. Fetal ultrasound biometry: 1. Head reference values. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106(2):126–135.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kurmanavicius J, Wright EM, Royston P, Zimmermann R, Huch R, Huch A, Wisser J. Fetal ultrasound biometry: 2. Abdomen and femur length reference values. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;106(2):136–143.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vintzileos AM, Egan JF. Adjusting the risk for trisomy 21 on the basis of second-trimester ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172(3):837–844.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spencer K, Bindra R, Nix AB, Heath V, Nicolaides KH. 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 2003; 22(2):142–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Physical status: the use and interpretation of biometry. in World Health Organization, Geneva: WHO;1995.
   Google Scholar
• Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Sharman RS, Deter RL, Park SK. Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements – a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;151(3):333–337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen P, Donnet ML, Ogston SA, Christie AD, Howie PW, Patel NB. Standards for ultrasound fetal growth velocity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103(1):60–69.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Owen P, Harrold AJ, Farrell T. Fetal size and growth velocity in the prediction of intrapartum caesarean section for fetal distress. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104(4):445–449.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Campbell S, Thoms A. Ultrasound measurement of the fetal head to abdomen circumference ratio in the assessment of growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1977;84(3): 165–174.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chervenak FA, Jeanty P, Cantraine F, Chitkara U, Venus I, Berkowitz RL, Hobbins JC. The diagnosis of fetal micro- cephaly. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;149(5):512–517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurtz AB, Goldberg BB. Obstetrical Measurements in Ultrasound: A Reference Manual. Chicago: Y.B.M.P. Inc.;1988. pp 95–110.
   Google Scholar
• Gardosi J, Chang A, Kalyan B, Sahota D, Symonds EM. Customised antenatal growth charts. Lancet 1992; 339(8788):283–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardosi J, Mongelli M, Wilcox M, Chang A. An adjustable fetal weight standard. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;6(3):168–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okada F, Sagami F, Tirone P, Morisetti A, Bussi S, Baguley JK. [Reproductive and developmental toxicity study of gadobenate dimeglumine formulation (E7155) (1) – Fertility study in male rats by intravenous administration]. J Toxicol Sci 1999;24(Suppl 1):61–69.
   Google Scholar
• Owen P, Khan KS. Fetal growth velocity in the prediction of intrauterine growth retardation in a low risk population. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105(5):536–540.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Duyme M, Dorion A, Ville Y. Revisiting first-trimester fetal biometry. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;22(1):63–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomon LJ, Bernard JP, Nizard J, Ville Y. First-trimester screening for fetal triploidy at 11 to 14 weeks: a role for fetal biometry. Prenat Diagn 2005:25(6):479–483.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar