Feasibility of a Standardised Mid-Trimester Ultrasound Protocol: A National Multicenter Study.

IF 4.7 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.18102
Thierry Bultez, Laurent Julien Salomon, Houman Mahallati, Nicolas Fries
{"title":"Feasibility of a Standardised Mid-Trimester Ultrasound Protocol: A National Multicenter Study.","authors":"Thierry Bultez, Laurent Julien Salomon, Houman Mahallati, Nicolas Fries","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.18102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Evaluate the feasibility and quality of a national standardised mid-trimester ultrasound protocol using a consensus-based quality assessment (QA) scoring system.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Multicenter prospective observational 'FLASH' study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>(i) Assessing the feasibility of a standardised protocol of 24 views at the mid-trimester scan, with 21 recommended and 3 additional views, in routine practice. (ii) Assessing the quality of these images by evaluating the presence of conformity criteria. (iii) Analysing the reliability between self-assessment and peer-assessment of the images.</p><p><strong>Population: </strong>A total of 440 mid-trimester scans.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A consensus-based QA scoring system comprising 73 conformity criteria was established with 28 experts using a 3-round Delphi method. Secondly, we asked operators to record 5 consecutive routine mid-trimester scans. Images were analysed by the sonographer themselves and by a qualified expert according to the scoring system. The frequency of recorded images was calculated for each of the views. Factors associated with missing images per scan were evaluated. The robustness of conformity criteria was assessed by reliability between self-evaluation and peer-evaluation.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Based on 9849 images, we observed feasibility of the 21 recommended standardised views for mid-trimester scan ranging from 88.5% to 100%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most conformity criteria (64/73, 88%) were met in over 90% of cases. Gwet's AC1 correlation between expert evaluation (peer-evaluation) and participant evaluation (self-evaluation) was greater than 0.80 for 70/73 (96%) criteria.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This large-scale 2-month 'flash' observational study demonstrates the feasibility and quality of a national standardised mid-trimester ultrasound protocol using a consensus-based QA scoring system.</p>","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.18102","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Evaluate the feasibility and quality of a national standardised mid-trimester ultrasound protocol using a consensus-based quality assessment (QA) scoring system.

Design: Multicenter prospective observational 'FLASH' study.

Setting: (i) Assessing the feasibility of a standardised protocol of 24 views at the mid-trimester scan, with 21 recommended and 3 additional views, in routine practice. (ii) Assessing the quality of these images by evaluating the presence of conformity criteria. (iii) Analysing the reliability between self-assessment and peer-assessment of the images.

Population: A total of 440 mid-trimester scans.

Methods: A consensus-based QA scoring system comprising 73 conformity criteria was established with 28 experts using a 3-round Delphi method. Secondly, we asked operators to record 5 consecutive routine mid-trimester scans. Images were analysed by the sonographer themselves and by a qualified expert according to the scoring system. The frequency of recorded images was calculated for each of the views. Factors associated with missing images per scan were evaluated. The robustness of conformity criteria was assessed by reliability between self-evaluation and peer-evaluation.

Main outcome measures: Based on 9849 images, we observed feasibility of the 21 recommended standardised views for mid-trimester scan ranging from 88.5% to 100%.

Results: Most conformity criteria (64/73, 88%) were met in over 90% of cases. Gwet's AC1 correlation between expert evaluation (peer-evaluation) and participant evaluation (self-evaluation) was greater than 0.80 for 70/73 (96%) criteria.

Conclusion: This large-scale 2-month 'flash' observational study demonstrates the feasibility and quality of a national standardised mid-trimester ultrasound protocol using a consensus-based QA scoring system.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
5.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BJOG is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The Journal publishes original, peer-reviewed work in all areas of obstetrics and gynaecology, including contraception, urogynaecology, fertility, oncology and clinical practice. Its aim is to publish the highest quality medical research in women''s health, worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Correction to "The Hayman Technique: A Simple Method to Treat Postpartum Haemorrhage". Feasibility of a Standardised Mid-Trimester Ultrasound Protocol: A National Multicenter Study. Regarding the Association Between Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and Risk of Pre-Eclampsia. Issue Information Evaluating the Effectiveness of Assisted Oocyte Activation in ICSI: Pairwise Meta-Analyses and Systematic Evidence Evaluation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1