Accuracy of portable ultrasound for obstetric biometry

We assessed the accuracy of two portable ultrasound machines (PUM) in obtaining fetal biometry and estimating gestational age. We analyzed data from the Fetal Age Machine Learning Initiative, an observational study of pregnant women in the United States and Zambia. Each participant underwent assessm...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology 2023-11
Hauptverfasser: Rittenhouse, K J, Vwalika, B, Sebastiao, Y, Pokaprakarn, T, Sindano, N, Shah, H, Stringer, E M, Kasaro, M P, Cole, S R, Stringer, J S A, Price, J T
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology
container_volume
creator Rittenhouse, K J
Vwalika, B
Sebastiao, Y
Pokaprakarn, T
Sindano, N
Shah, H
Stringer, E M
Kasaro, M P
Cole, S R
Stringer, J S A
Price, J T
description We assessed the accuracy of two portable ultrasound machines (PUM) in obtaining fetal biometry and estimating gestational age. We analyzed data from the Fetal Age Machine Learning Initiative, an observational study of pregnant women in the United States and Zambia. Each participant underwent assessment by an experienced sonographer using both a high-specification ultrasound machine (HSUM) and a PUM (either Butterfly iQ or Clarius C3) to measure fetal biometry and calculate estimated gestational age (EGA) at each visit. Through comparison of paired PUM-HSUM scans, we estimated agreement between individual biometry measurements and aggregate gestational age estimates by reporting mean difference, along with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots, adjusting for trend. 881 participants contributed 1386 paired PUM-HSUM ultrasound studies between April and December 2021. PUM studies included 991 Butterfly and 395 Clarius. Gestational age at scan ranged from 7 to 38 weeks. Compared to HSUM, the Butterfly PUM had a mean difference of -0.20 days (95%CI±0.40) in the 1st trimester and -0.68 days (95%CI±0.68) in the 2nd/3rd trimesters. Also compared to HSUM, the Clarius PUM had a mean difference of 0.47 days (95%CI±0.64) in the 1st trimester and -1.67 days (95%CI±0.43) in the 2nd/3rd trimesters. ICCs were 0.989 or greater throughout. Increasing gestational age was associated with increasing error and absolute error. Both PUM devices demonstrated a modest trend toward underestimation of EGA at advancing gestational ages in 2nd/3rd trimester scans, compared to HSUM. Both the Butterfly iQ and Clarius C3 PUM devices were highly accurate in performing fetal biometry in a diverse population from the US and Zambia. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/uog.27541
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmed_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_uog_27541</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>38011589</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c579-d541e644e752502a3f2de78c188b0fddeba810986dc2d9482d4983a25c809f193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9jztPwzAYRS0EoqEw8AeQV4aUz8_YY1XxkiqxdI_8REENjuxkyL8nUGC6dzi6ugehWwIbAkAfpvS-oY3g5AxVhEtdQwPiHFWgJdSN1HSFrkr5AADJmbxEK6aAEKF0heTWuSkbN-MU8ZDyaOwx4Ok4ZlPS9OlxTBknW8Yw5s5h26V-afM1uojmWMLNb67R4enxsHup92_Pr7vtvnai0bVfLgXJeWgEFUANi9SHRjmilIXofbBGEdBKeke95op6rhUzVDgFOhLN1uj-NOtyKiWH2A65602eWwLtt3q7qLc_6gt7d2KHyfbB_5N_ruwLP-NT6g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy of portable ultrasound for obstetric biometry</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Free Content</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Rittenhouse, K J ; Vwalika, B ; Sebastiao, Y ; Pokaprakarn, T ; Sindano, N ; Shah, H ; Stringer, E M ; Kasaro, M P ; Cole, S R ; Stringer, J S A ; Price, J T</creator><creatorcontrib>Rittenhouse, K J ; Vwalika, B ; Sebastiao, Y ; Pokaprakarn, T ; Sindano, N ; Shah, H ; Stringer, E M ; Kasaro, M P ; Cole, S R ; Stringer, J S A ; Price, J T</creatorcontrib><description>We assessed the accuracy of two portable ultrasound machines (PUM) in obtaining fetal biometry and estimating gestational age. We analyzed data from the Fetal Age Machine Learning Initiative, an observational study of pregnant women in the United States and Zambia. Each participant underwent assessment by an experienced sonographer using both a high-specification ultrasound machine (HSUM) and a PUM (either Butterfly iQ or Clarius C3) to measure fetal biometry and calculate estimated gestational age (EGA) at each visit. Through comparison of paired PUM-HSUM scans, we estimated agreement between individual biometry measurements and aggregate gestational age estimates by reporting mean difference, along with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots, adjusting for trend. 881 participants contributed 1386 paired PUM-HSUM ultrasound studies between April and December 2021. PUM studies included 991 Butterfly and 395 Clarius. Gestational age at scan ranged from 7 to 38 weeks. Compared to HSUM, the Butterfly PUM had a mean difference of -0.20 days (95%CI±0.40) in the 1st trimester and -0.68 days (95%CI±0.68) in the 2nd/3rd trimesters. Also compared to HSUM, the Clarius PUM had a mean difference of 0.47 days (95%CI±0.64) in the 1st trimester and -1.67 days (95%CI±0.43) in the 2nd/3rd trimesters. ICCs were 0.989 or greater throughout. Increasing gestational age was associated with increasing error and absolute error. Both PUM devices demonstrated a modest trend toward underestimation of EGA at advancing gestational ages in 2nd/3rd trimester scans, compared to HSUM. Both the Butterfly iQ and Clarius C3 PUM devices were highly accurate in performing fetal biometry in a diverse population from the US and Zambia. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-7692</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-0705</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/uog.27541</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38011589</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><ispartof>Ultrasound in obstetrics &amp; gynecology, 2023-11</ispartof><rights>This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0002-5571-0793</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27926,27927</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38011589$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rittenhouse, K J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vwalika, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sebastiao, Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pokaprakarn, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sindano, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stringer, E M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kasaro, M P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cole, S R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stringer, J S A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, J T</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy of portable ultrasound for obstetric biometry</title><title>Ultrasound in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</title><addtitle>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>We assessed the accuracy of two portable ultrasound machines (PUM) in obtaining fetal biometry and estimating gestational age. We analyzed data from the Fetal Age Machine Learning Initiative, an observational study of pregnant women in the United States and Zambia. Each participant underwent assessment by an experienced sonographer using both a high-specification ultrasound machine (HSUM) and a PUM (either Butterfly iQ or Clarius C3) to measure fetal biometry and calculate estimated gestational age (EGA) at each visit. Through comparison of paired PUM-HSUM scans, we estimated agreement between individual biometry measurements and aggregate gestational age estimates by reporting mean difference, along with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots, adjusting for trend. 881 participants contributed 1386 paired PUM-HSUM ultrasound studies between April and December 2021. PUM studies included 991 Butterfly and 395 Clarius. Gestational age at scan ranged from 7 to 38 weeks. Compared to HSUM, the Butterfly PUM had a mean difference of -0.20 days (95%CI±0.40) in the 1st trimester and -0.68 days (95%CI±0.68) in the 2nd/3rd trimesters. Also compared to HSUM, the Clarius PUM had a mean difference of 0.47 days (95%CI±0.64) in the 1st trimester and -1.67 days (95%CI±0.43) in the 2nd/3rd trimesters. ICCs were 0.989 or greater throughout. Increasing gestational age was associated with increasing error and absolute error. Both PUM devices demonstrated a modest trend toward underestimation of EGA at advancing gestational ages in 2nd/3rd trimester scans, compared to HSUM. Both the Butterfly iQ and Clarius C3 PUM devices were highly accurate in performing fetal biometry in a diverse population from the US and Zambia. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</description><issn>0960-7692</issn><issn>1469-0705</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9jztPwzAYRS0EoqEw8AeQV4aUz8_YY1XxkiqxdI_8REENjuxkyL8nUGC6dzi6ugehWwIbAkAfpvS-oY3g5AxVhEtdQwPiHFWgJdSN1HSFrkr5AADJmbxEK6aAEKF0heTWuSkbN-MU8ZDyaOwx4Ok4ZlPS9OlxTBknW8Yw5s5h26V-afM1uojmWMLNb67R4enxsHup92_Pr7vtvnai0bVfLgXJeWgEFUANi9SHRjmilIXofbBGEdBKeke95op6rhUzVDgFOhLN1uj-NOtyKiWH2A65602eWwLtt3q7qLc_6gt7d2KHyfbB_5N_ruwLP-NT6g</recordid><startdate>20231127</startdate><enddate>20231127</enddate><creator>Rittenhouse, K J</creator><creator>Vwalika, B</creator><creator>Sebastiao, Y</creator><creator>Pokaprakarn, T</creator><creator>Sindano, N</creator><creator>Shah, H</creator><creator>Stringer, E M</creator><creator>Kasaro, M P</creator><creator>Cole, S R</creator><creator>Stringer, J S A</creator><creator>Price, J T</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5571-0793</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20231127</creationdate><title>Accuracy of portable ultrasound for obstetric biometry</title><author>Rittenhouse, K J ; Vwalika, B ; Sebastiao, Y ; Pokaprakarn, T ; Sindano, N ; Shah, H ; Stringer, E M ; Kasaro, M P ; Cole, S R ; Stringer, J S A ; Price, J T</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c579-d541e644e752502a3f2de78c188b0fddeba810986dc2d9482d4983a25c809f193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rittenhouse, K J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vwalika, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sebastiao, Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pokaprakarn, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sindano, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stringer, E M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kasaro, M P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cole, S R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stringer, J S A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, J T</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Ultrasound in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rittenhouse, K J</au><au>Vwalika, B</au><au>Sebastiao, Y</au><au>Pokaprakarn, T</au><au>Sindano, N</au><au>Shah, H</au><au>Stringer, E M</au><au>Kasaro, M P</au><au>Cole, S R</au><au>Stringer, J S A</au><au>Price, J T</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accuracy of portable ultrasound for obstetric biometry</atitle><jtitle>Ultrasound in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2023-11-27</date><risdate>2023</risdate><issn>0960-7692</issn><eissn>1469-0705</eissn><abstract>We assessed the accuracy of two portable ultrasound machines (PUM) in obtaining fetal biometry and estimating gestational age. We analyzed data from the Fetal Age Machine Learning Initiative, an observational study of pregnant women in the United States and Zambia. Each participant underwent assessment by an experienced sonographer using both a high-specification ultrasound machine (HSUM) and a PUM (either Butterfly iQ or Clarius C3) to measure fetal biometry and calculate estimated gestational age (EGA) at each visit. Through comparison of paired PUM-HSUM scans, we estimated agreement between individual biometry measurements and aggregate gestational age estimates by reporting mean difference, along with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots, adjusting for trend. 881 participants contributed 1386 paired PUM-HSUM ultrasound studies between April and December 2021. PUM studies included 991 Butterfly and 395 Clarius. Gestational age at scan ranged from 7 to 38 weeks. Compared to HSUM, the Butterfly PUM had a mean difference of -0.20 days (95%CI±0.40) in the 1st trimester and -0.68 days (95%CI±0.68) in the 2nd/3rd trimesters. Also compared to HSUM, the Clarius PUM had a mean difference of 0.47 days (95%CI±0.64) in the 1st trimester and -1.67 days (95%CI±0.43) in the 2nd/3rd trimesters. ICCs were 0.989 or greater throughout. Increasing gestational age was associated with increasing error and absolute error. Both PUM devices demonstrated a modest trend toward underestimation of EGA at advancing gestational ages in 2nd/3rd trimester scans, compared to HSUM. Both the Butterfly iQ and Clarius C3 PUM devices were highly accurate in performing fetal biometry in a diverse population from the US and Zambia. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>38011589</pmid><doi>10.1002/uog.27541</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5571-0793</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0960-7692
ispartof Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology, 2023-11
issn 0960-7692
1469-0705
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_uog_27541
source Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; Wiley Online Library Free Content; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
title Accuracy of portable ultrasound for obstetric biometry
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T08%3A32%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Accuracy%20of%20portable%20ultrasound%20for%20obstetric%20biometry&rft.jtitle=Ultrasound%20in%20obstetrics%20&%20gynecology&rft.au=Rittenhouse,%20K%20J&rft.date=2023-11-27&rft.issn=0960-7692&rft.eissn=1469-0705&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/uog.27541&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed_cross%3E38011589%3C/pubmed_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/38011589&rfr_iscdi=true