Consistency in the transabdominal ultrasound measurement of cervical length in mid-pregnancy

Michelle K. Pedretti, Elizabeth A. Nathan, Dorota A. Doherty, Jan E. Dickinson
{"title":"Consistency in the transabdominal ultrasound measurement of cervical length in mid-pregnancy","authors":"Michelle K. Pedretti,&nbsp;Elizabeth A. Nathan,&nbsp;Dorota A. Doherty,&nbsp;Jan E. Dickinson","doi":"10.1002/ajum.12303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The Western Australian Preterm Birth Prevention Initiative recommends a transabdominal cervical length (TACL) measurement at the mid-pregnancy ultrasound to screen low-risk women for preterm birth risk. In view of this recommendation, we assessed the inter-observer consistency of TACL screening in mid-pregnancy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Routinely collected mid-pregnancy TACL ultrasound images were graded from 0 to 4 according to the anatomical landmarks identified by a single expert. A random selection of 10 images of each grade were disseminated in an electronic survey to determine inter- and intra-observer variations in the classification of the cervical image.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 244 participants graded 50 TACL images. Six participants repeated the grading. Overall agreement to the exact initial grade for all images was 49.6%, highest for images at both ends of the spectrum (83% Grade 0 and 70.4% for Grade 4). Overall agreement to the initial diagnostic Grades 3 and 4 was 75.3% (95% CI 74.5–76.0%) and was higher when the maternal bladder was empty. There was moderate inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.42) for Grades 3 and 4 (diagnostic) or Grades 1 and 2 (non-diagnostic). The intra-rater agreement was fair to good (κ = 0.59, 95% CI 0.49–0.70) for those who repeated the assessment (including the expert grader).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Sonographic CL screening is considered an important tool for the identification of women at high risk of preterm birth. Image classification of TACL performed poorly compared with previous studies assessing transvaginal cervical length. Improved reliability and measurement consistency may be achieved through high levels of quality assurance, ongoing training and image audit.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36517,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":"25 3","pages":"127-136"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9351434/pdf/AJUM-25-127.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajum.12303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose

The Western Australian Preterm Birth Prevention Initiative recommends a transabdominal cervical length (TACL) measurement at the mid-pregnancy ultrasound to screen low-risk women for preterm birth risk. In view of this recommendation, we assessed the inter-observer consistency of TACL screening in mid-pregnancy.

Methods

Routinely collected mid-pregnancy TACL ultrasound images were graded from 0 to 4 according to the anatomical landmarks identified by a single expert. A random selection of 10 images of each grade were disseminated in an electronic survey to determine inter- and intra-observer variations in the classification of the cervical image.

Results

A total of 244 participants graded 50 TACL images. Six participants repeated the grading. Overall agreement to the exact initial grade for all images was 49.6%, highest for images at both ends of the spectrum (83% Grade 0 and 70.4% for Grade 4). Overall agreement to the initial diagnostic Grades 3 and 4 was 75.3% (95% CI 74.5–76.0%) and was higher when the maternal bladder was empty. There was moderate inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.42) for Grades 3 and 4 (diagnostic) or Grades 1 and 2 (non-diagnostic). The intra-rater agreement was fair to good (κ = 0.59, 95% CI 0.49–0.70) for those who repeated the assessment (including the expert grader).

Conclusions

Sonographic CL screening is considered an important tool for the identification of women at high risk of preterm birth. Image classification of TACL performed poorly compared with previous studies assessing transvaginal cervical length. Improved reliability and measurement consistency may be achieved through high levels of quality assurance, ongoing training and image audit.

Abstract Image

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
妊娠中期经腹超声测量宫颈长度的一致性
目的西澳大利亚预防早产倡议建议在妊娠中期进行经腹宫颈长度(TACL)测量,以筛查低风险妇女的早产风险。鉴于这一建议,我们评估了妊娠中期TACL筛查的观察者间一致性。方法常规采集妊娠中期的TACL超声图像,根据单个专家鉴定的解剖标志进行0 ~ 4级分级。在电子调查中随机选择每个等级的10张图像,以确定观察者之间和内部对宫颈图像分类的变化。结果244名受试者对50张TACL图像进行评分。六名参与者重复了评分。所有图像与确切初始分级的总体一致性为49.6%,光谱两端的图像最高(0级为83%,4级为70.4%)。3级和4级初始诊断的总体一致性为75.3% (95% CI 74.5-76.0%),当母体膀胱空时更高。3级和4级(诊断性)或1级和2级(非诊断性)的评分间存在中度一致性(κ = 0.42)。对于那些重复评估的人(包括专家评分者),评分者之间的一致性从好到好(κ = 0.59, 95% CI 0.49-0.70)。结论超声CL筛查是鉴别早产高危妇女的重要工具。与以往评估经阴道宫颈长度的研究相比,TACL的图像分类表现较差。通过高水平的质量保证、持续培训和形象审核,可以提高可靠性和测量一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The impact of ultrasound imaging on patient management – Let's practice the evidence EUS‐guided tissue acquisition from gastric subepithelial lesions—The optimal technique still remains undecided Ultrasound‐assisted and landmark‐based nusinersen delivery in spinal muscular atrophy adults: A retrospective analysis Cutaneous ultrasound in the diagnosis and assessment of inflammatory activity in tinea capitis
×
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