Cited by 195Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsUltrasound in Clinical Applications

Intra‐ and interobserver variability in fetal ultrasound measurements

Open access
Sarris, I., Ioannou, C., Chamberlain, P., Ohuma, E., Roseman, F., Hoch, L., Altman, D. G., Papageorghiou, A. T. +1 more·2012·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

Objective: To assess intra‐ and interobserver variability of fetal biometry measurements throughout pregnancy. Methods: A total of 175 scans (of 140 fetuses) were prospectively performed at 14–41 weeks of gestation ensuring an even distribution throughout gestation. From among three experienced sonographers, a pair of observers independently acquired a duplicate set of seven standard measurements for each fetus. Differences between and within observers were expressed in measurement units (mm), as a percentage of fetal dimensions and as gestational age‐specific Z‐scores. For all comparisons, Bland–Altman plots were used to quantify limits of agreement. Results: When using measurement units (mm) to express differences, both intra‐ and interobserver variability increased with gestational age. However, when measurement of variability took into account the increasing fetal size and was expressed as a percentage or Z‐score, it remained constant throughout gestation. When expressed as a percentage or Z‐score, the 95% limits of agreement for intraobserver difference for head circumference (HC) were ± 3.0% or 0.67; they were ± 5.3% or 0.90 and ± 6.6% or 0.94 for abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL), respectively. The corresponding values for interobserver differences were ± 4.9% or 0.99 for HC, ± 8.8% or 1.35 for AC and ± 11.1% or 1.43 for FL. Conclusions: Although intra‐ and interobserver variability increases with advancing gestation when expressed in millimeters, both are constant as a percentage of the fetal dimensions or when reported as a Z‐score. Thus, measurement variability should be considered when interpreting fetal growth rates. Copyright © 2012 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.10082

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ultrasound examination results are highly dependent on the training, experience and skill of the sonographer.

    “Thus ultrasound examination results are highly dependent on the training, experience and skill of the sonographer [23].”

    From Deep Learning Strategies for Ultrasound in Pregnancy (2020) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sarris, I., Ioannou, C., Chamberlain, P., Ohuma, E., Roseman, F., Hoch, L., Altman, D. G., Papageorghiou, A. T., & for the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21 Century (INTERGROWTH‐21)
Affiliations
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Papageorghiou, A. T.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-02-27
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
266-273
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W2013364878
Cited by
195
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Grant ID# 49038, 49038)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University of Oxford
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
Keywords
fetal biometry, intraobserver variability, interobserver variability, fetal ultrasound measurement, gestational age, head circumference, abdominal circumference, femur length, Z-score, fetal growth assessment, measurement agreement
MeSH terms
Adult, Biometry, Female, Gestational Age, Humans, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Fetal Development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review