Maintaining quality assurance for sonographic nuchal translucency measurement: lessons from the FASTER Trial
Objective To evaluate nuchal translucency measurement quality assurance techniques in a large‐scale study. Methods From 1999 to 2001, unselected patients with singleton gestations between 10 + 3 weeks and 13 + 6 weeks were recruited from 15 centers. Sonographic nuchal translucency measurement was pe...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology 2009-02, Vol.33 (2), p.142-146 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 146 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 142 |
| container_title | Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology |
| container_volume | 33 |
| creator | D'Alton, M. E. Cleary‐Goldman, J. Lambert‐Messerlian, G. Ball, R. H. Nyberg, D. A. Comstock, C. H. Bukowski, R. Berkowitz, R. L. Dar, P. Dugoff, L. Craigo, S. D. Timor, I. E. Carr, S. R. Wolfe, H. M. Dukes, K. Canick, J. A. Malone, F. D. |
| description | Objective
To evaluate nuchal translucency measurement quality assurance techniques in a large‐scale study.
Methods
From 1999 to 2001, unselected patients with singleton gestations between 10 + 3 weeks and 13 + 6 weeks were recruited from 15 centers. Sonographic nuchal translucency measurement was performed by trained technicians. Four levels of quality assurance were employed: (1) a standardized protocol utilized by each sonographer; (2) local‐image review by a second sonographer; (3) central‐image scoring by a single physician; and (4) epidemiological monitoring of all accepted nuchal translucency measurements cross‐sectionally and over time.
Results
Detailed quality assessment was available for 37 018 patients. Nuchal translucency measurement was successful in 96.3% of women. Local reviewers rejected 0.8% of images, and the single central physician reviewer rejected a further 2.9%. Multivariate analysis indicated that higher body mass index, earlier gestational age and transvaginal probe use were predictors of failure of nuchal translucency measurement and central image rejection (P = 0.001). Epidemiological monitoring identified a drift in measurements over time.
Conclusion
Despite initial training and continuous image review, changes in nuchal translucency measurements occur over time. To maintain screening accuracy, ongoing quality assessment is needed. Copyright © 2009 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/uog.6265 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66884857</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>66884857</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3495-8a597acc6a21213c543ac433d486ba5734fa388668786e99149b38a881d12db33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10EFLwzAUB_Agis4p-AkkF8VLZ9KkaeJtDDcFZaDzXN6ydIuk7Za0yL69mRt68vDI4f3yf_BH6IqSASUkve-a5UCkIjtCPcqFSkhOsmPUI0qQJBcqPUPnIXwSQgRn4hSdUUVzlnLaQ-4VbN3GsfUSbzpwtt1iCKHzUGuDy8bj0NTN0sN6ZTWuO70Ch9u4Da7TptZbXBmI3FSmbh-wMyH6gEvfVLhdGTwevs8e3_DMW3AX6KQEF8zl4e2jj_HjbPSUvEwnz6PhS6IZV1kiIVM5aC0gpSllOuMMNGdswaWYQ5YzXgKTUgiZS2GUolzNmQQp6YKmizljfXS7z137ZtOZ0BaVDdo4B7VpulDEn5LLGNRHd3uofROCN2Wx9rYCvy0oKXbNFrHZYtdspNeHzG5emcUfPFQZwc0BQNDgyl2BNvy6lFKSS0miS_buyzqz_fdg8TGd_Bz-Bv0wj7c</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>66884857</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Maintaining quality assurance for sonographic nuchal translucency measurement: lessons from the FASTER Trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><creator>D'Alton, M. E. ; Cleary‐Goldman, J. ; Lambert‐Messerlian, G. ; Ball, R. H. ; Nyberg, D. A. ; Comstock, C. H. ; Bukowski, R. ; Berkowitz, R. L. ; Dar, P. ; Dugoff, L. ; Craigo, S. D. ; Timor, I. E. ; Carr, S. R. ; Wolfe, H. M. ; Dukes, K. ; Canick, J. A. ; Malone, F. D.</creator><creatorcontrib>D'Alton, M. E. ; Cleary‐Goldman, J. ; Lambert‐Messerlian, G. ; Ball, R. H. ; Nyberg, D. A. ; Comstock, C. H. ; Bukowski, R. ; Berkowitz, R. L. ; Dar, P. ; Dugoff, L. ; Craigo, S. D. ; Timor, I. E. ; Carr, S. R. ; Wolfe, H. M. ; Dukes, K. ; Canick, J. A. ; Malone, F. D.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
To evaluate nuchal translucency measurement quality assurance techniques in a large‐scale study.
Methods
From 1999 to 2001, unselected patients with singleton gestations between 10 + 3 weeks and 13 + 6 weeks were recruited from 15 centers. Sonographic nuchal translucency measurement was performed by trained technicians. Four levels of quality assurance were employed: (1) a standardized protocol utilized by each sonographer; (2) local‐image review by a second sonographer; (3) central‐image scoring by a single physician; and (4) epidemiological monitoring of all accepted nuchal translucency measurements cross‐sectionally and over time.
Results
Detailed quality assessment was available for 37 018 patients. Nuchal translucency measurement was successful in 96.3% of women. Local reviewers rejected 0.8% of images, and the single central physician reviewer rejected a further 2.9%. Multivariate analysis indicated that higher body mass index, earlier gestational age and transvaginal probe use were predictors of failure of nuchal translucency measurement and central image rejection (P = 0.001). Epidemiological monitoring identified a drift in measurements over time.
Conclusion
Despite initial training and continuous image review, changes in nuchal translucency measurements occur over time. To maintain screening accuracy, ongoing quality assessment is needed. Copyright © 2009 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-7692</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-0705</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/uog.6265</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19173241</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Chromosome aberrations ; Down Syndrome - diagnostic imaging ; Down syndrome screening ; Female ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Mass Screening ; Medical genetics ; Medical sciences ; nuchal translucency ; Nuchal Translucency Measurement - standards ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Trimester, First ; Pregnancy Trimester, Second ; quality assessment ; quality assurance ; Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods ; ultrasound ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology, 2009-02, Vol.33 (2), p.142-146</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2009 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3495-8a597acc6a21213c543ac433d486ba5734fa388668786e99149b38a881d12db33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3495-8a597acc6a21213c543ac433d486ba5734fa388668786e99149b38a881d12db33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fuog.6265$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fuog.6265$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,1419,1435,27931,27932,45581,45582,46416,46840</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=21107880$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19173241$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>D'Alton, M. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cleary‐Goldman, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lambert‐Messerlian, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ball, R. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nyberg, D. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Comstock, C. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bukowski, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berkowitz, R. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dar, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dugoff, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Craigo, S. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Timor, I. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carr, S. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolfe, H. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dukes, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Canick, J. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malone, F. D.</creatorcontrib><title>Maintaining quality assurance for sonographic nuchal translucency measurement: lessons from the FASTER Trial</title><title>Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology</title><addtitle>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Objective
To evaluate nuchal translucency measurement quality assurance techniques in a large‐scale study.
Methods
From 1999 to 2001, unselected patients with singleton gestations between 10 + 3 weeks and 13 + 6 weeks were recruited from 15 centers. Sonographic nuchal translucency measurement was performed by trained technicians. Four levels of quality assurance were employed: (1) a standardized protocol utilized by each sonographer; (2) local‐image review by a second sonographer; (3) central‐image scoring by a single physician; and (4) epidemiological monitoring of all accepted nuchal translucency measurements cross‐sectionally and over time.
Results
Detailed quality assessment was available for 37 018 patients. Nuchal translucency measurement was successful in 96.3% of women. Local reviewers rejected 0.8% of images, and the single central physician reviewer rejected a further 2.9%. Multivariate analysis indicated that higher body mass index, earlier gestational age and transvaginal probe use were predictors of failure of nuchal translucency measurement and central image rejection (P = 0.001). Epidemiological monitoring identified a drift in measurements over time.
Conclusion
Despite initial training and continuous image review, changes in nuchal translucency measurements occur over time. To maintain screening accuracy, ongoing quality assessment is needed. Copyright © 2009 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Chromosome aberrations</subject><subject>Down Syndrome - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Down syndrome screening</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mass Screening</subject><subject>Medical genetics</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>nuchal translucency</subject><subject>Nuchal Translucency Measurement - standards</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Trimester, First</subject><subject>Pregnancy Trimester, Second</subject><subject>quality assessment</subject><subject>quality assurance</subject><subject>Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods</subject><subject>ultrasound</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0960-7692</issn><issn>1469-0705</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10EFLwzAUB_Agis4p-AkkF8VLZ9KkaeJtDDcFZaDzXN6ydIuk7Za0yL69mRt68vDI4f3yf_BH6IqSASUkve-a5UCkIjtCPcqFSkhOsmPUI0qQJBcqPUPnIXwSQgRn4hSdUUVzlnLaQ-4VbN3GsfUSbzpwtt1iCKHzUGuDy8bj0NTN0sN6ZTWuO70Ch9u4Da7TptZbXBmI3FSmbh-wMyH6gEvfVLhdGTwevs8e3_DMW3AX6KQEF8zl4e2jj_HjbPSUvEwnz6PhS6IZV1kiIVM5aC0gpSllOuMMNGdswaWYQ5YzXgKTUgiZS2GUolzNmQQp6YKmizljfXS7z137ZtOZ0BaVDdo4B7VpulDEn5LLGNRHd3uofROCN2Wx9rYCvy0oKXbNFrHZYtdspNeHzG5emcUfPFQZwc0BQNDgyl2BNvy6lFKSS0miS_buyzqz_fdg8TGd_Bz-Bv0wj7c</recordid><startdate>200902</startdate><enddate>200902</enddate><creator>D'Alton, M. E.</creator><creator>Cleary‐Goldman, J.</creator><creator>Lambert‐Messerlian, G.</creator><creator>Ball, R. H.</creator><creator>Nyberg, D. A.</creator><creator>Comstock, C. H.</creator><creator>Bukowski, R.</creator><creator>Berkowitz, R. L.</creator><creator>Dar, P.</creator><creator>Dugoff, L.</creator><creator>Craigo, S. D.</creator><creator>Timor, I. E.</creator><creator>Carr, S. R.</creator><creator>Wolfe, H. M.</creator><creator>Dukes, K.</creator><creator>Canick, J. A.</creator><creator>Malone, F. D.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200902</creationdate><title>Maintaining quality assurance for sonographic nuchal translucency measurement: lessons from the FASTER Trial</title><author>D'Alton, M. E. ; Cleary‐Goldman, J. ; Lambert‐Messerlian, G. ; Ball, R. H. ; Nyberg, D. A. ; Comstock, C. H. ; Bukowski, R. ; Berkowitz, R. L. ; Dar, P. ; Dugoff, L. ; Craigo, S. D. ; Timor, I. E. ; Carr, S. R. ; Wolfe, H. M. ; Dukes, K. ; Canick, J. A. ; Malone, F. D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3495-8a597acc6a21213c543ac433d486ba5734fa388668786e99149b38a881d12db33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Chromosome aberrations</topic><topic>Down Syndrome - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Down syndrome screening</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mass Screening</topic><topic>Medical genetics</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>nuchal translucency</topic><topic>Nuchal Translucency Measurement - standards</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Trimester, First</topic><topic>Pregnancy Trimester, Second</topic><topic>quality assessment</topic><topic>quality assurance</topic><topic>Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods</topic><topic>ultrasound</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>D'Alton, M. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cleary‐Goldman, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lambert‐Messerlian, G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ball, R. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nyberg, D. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Comstock, C. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bukowski, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berkowitz, R. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dar, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dugoff, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Craigo, S. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Timor, I. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carr, S. R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolfe, H. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dukes, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Canick, J. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malone, F. D.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>D'Alton, M. E.</au><au>Cleary‐Goldman, J.</au><au>Lambert‐Messerlian, G.</au><au>Ball, R. H.</au><au>Nyberg, D. A.</au><au>Comstock, C. H.</au><au>Bukowski, R.</au><au>Berkowitz, R. L.</au><au>Dar, P.</au><au>Dugoff, L.</au><au>Craigo, S. D.</au><au>Timor, I. E.</au><au>Carr, S. R.</au><au>Wolfe, H. M.</au><au>Dukes, K.</au><au>Canick, J. A.</au><au>Malone, F. D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Maintaining quality assurance for sonographic nuchal translucency measurement: lessons from the FASTER Trial</atitle><jtitle>Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2009-02</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>142</spage><epage>146</epage><pages>142-146</pages><issn>0960-7692</issn><eissn>1469-0705</eissn><abstract>Objective
To evaluate nuchal translucency measurement quality assurance techniques in a large‐scale study.
Methods
From 1999 to 2001, unselected patients with singleton gestations between 10 + 3 weeks and 13 + 6 weeks were recruited from 15 centers. Sonographic nuchal translucency measurement was performed by trained technicians. Four levels of quality assurance were employed: (1) a standardized protocol utilized by each sonographer; (2) local‐image review by a second sonographer; (3) central‐image scoring by a single physician; and (4) epidemiological monitoring of all accepted nuchal translucency measurements cross‐sectionally and over time.
Results
Detailed quality assessment was available for 37 018 patients. Nuchal translucency measurement was successful in 96.3% of women. Local reviewers rejected 0.8% of images, and the single central physician reviewer rejected a further 2.9%. Multivariate analysis indicated that higher body mass index, earlier gestational age and transvaginal probe use were predictors of failure of nuchal translucency measurement and central image rejection (P = 0.001). Epidemiological monitoring identified a drift in measurements over time.
Conclusion
Despite initial training and continuous image review, changes in nuchal translucency measurements occur over time. To maintain screening accuracy, ongoing quality assessment is needed. Copyright © 2009 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</pub><pmid>19173241</pmid><doi>10.1002/uog.6265</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0960-7692 |
| ispartof | Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology, 2009-02, Vol.33 (2), p.142-146 |
| issn | 0960-7692 1469-0705 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_66884857 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Access via Wiley Online Library; Wiley Free Content |
| subjects | Adult Biological and medical sciences Chromosome aberrations Down Syndrome - diagnostic imaging Down syndrome screening Female Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans Mass Screening Medical genetics Medical sciences nuchal translucency Nuchal Translucency Measurement - standards Pregnancy Pregnancy Trimester, First Pregnancy Trimester, Second quality assessment quality assurance Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods ultrasound Young Adult |
| title | Maintaining quality assurance for sonographic nuchal translucency measurement: lessons from the FASTER Trial |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-05T04%3A45%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Maintaining%20quality%20assurance%20for%20sonographic%20nuchal%20translucency%20measurement:%20lessons%20from%20the%20FASTER%20Trial&rft.jtitle=Ultrasound%20in%20obstetrics%20&%20gynecology&rft.au=D'Alton,%20M.%20E.&rft.date=2009-02&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=142&rft.epage=146&rft.pages=142-146&rft.issn=0960-7692&rft.eissn=1469-0705&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/uog.6265&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E66884857%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=66884857&rft_id=info:pmid/19173241&rfr_iscdi=true |