The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Intra‐ and interobserver variability in fetal ultrasound measurements
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Self-citationBeckett, A. H., Rowland, M., & TURNER, P. (1965) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(65)91037-8 · Cited by 16,917
4 million neonatal deaths: When? Where? Why?
Lawn, J. E., Cousens, S., & Zupan, J. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)71048-5 · Cited by 3,670
Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures.
Brennan, P., & Silman, A. J. (1992) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.304.6840.1491 · Cited by 999
Bland, M., & Altman, D. G. (1990) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/0010-4825(90)90013-f · Cited by 689
Self-citationRobinson, H. P. (1973) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.4.5883.28 · Cited by 392
Charts of fetal size: 2. Head measurements*
Chitty, L. S., Altman, D. G., Henderson, A., & Campbell, S. C. (1994) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13007.x · Cited by 323
Self-citationCharts of fetal size: 3. Abdominal measurements
Chitty, L. S., Altman, D. G., Henderson, A., & Campbell, S. (1994) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13077.x · Cited by 272
Self-citationCharts of fetal size: 4. Femur length
Chitty, L. S., Altman, D. G., Henderson, A., & Campbell, S. C. (1994) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1994.tb13078.x · Cited by 246
Self-citationWHO MONICA Project: Risk Factors
WHO MONICA Project, Keil, U., & Kuulasmaa, K. (1989) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/18.supplement_1.s46 · Cited by 200
Fetal head circumference: relation to menstrual age
Hadlock, F. P., Deter, R., Harrist, R. B., & Park, S. (1982) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.138.4.649 · Cited by 195
Fetal abdominal circumference as a predictor of menstrual age
Hadlock, F. P., Deter, R., Harrist, R. B., & Park, S. (1982) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.139.2.367 · Cited by 179
Chitty, L. S., & Altman, D. G. (1994) · Ultrasound · doi:10.1177/1742271x9400200404 · Cited by 175
Self-citationMongelli, M. (1998) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00349-4 · Cited by 116
Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility of fetal biometry
Perni, S. C., Chervenak, F. A., Kalish, R. B., Magherini‐Rothe, S., Predanic, M., Streltzoff, J., & Skupski, D. W. (2004) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.1717 · Cited by 113
Obstetric ultrasound scanning by local health workers in a refugee camp on the Thai-Burmese border.
Rijken, M. J., Lee, S. J., Boel, M. E., Papageorghiou, A. T., Visser, G. H. A., Dwell, S. L. M., Kennedy, S. H., Singhasivanon, P., White, N. J., Nosten, F., et al. (2009) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.7350 · Cited by 108
Self-citationDating and growth in the first trimester
Bottomley, C., & Bourne, T. (2009) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2009.01.011 · Cited by 98
The importance of quality management in fetal measurement
Dudley, N. J., & Chapman, E. (2002) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00549.x · Cited by 94
ANDERSON, N. G., Boswell, O., & Duff, G. B. (1995) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.165.4.7676997 · Cited by 82
Percentile ranks of sonar fetal abdominal circumference measurements
Tamura, R. K., & Sabbagha, R. E. (1980) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/0002-9378(80)90272-0 · Cited by 68
The measuring of blood pressure during pregnancy
Villar, J., Repke, J. T., Markush, L., Calvert, W., & Rhoads, G. (1989) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/0002-9378(89)90777-1 · Cited by 61
The evolving role of ultrasound in obstetrics/gynecology practice
Papp, Z., & Fekete, T. (2003) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1016/s0020-7292(03)00224-8 · Cited by 53
Ultrasonic fetal weight estimation: Analysis of inter‐ and intra‐observer variability
Chang, T. C., Robson, S. C., Spencer, J. A. D., & GALLIVAN, S. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Ultrasound · doi:10.1002/jcu.1870210808 · Cited by 51
Fetal head and abdominal circumferences: I. Evaluation of measurement errors
Deter, R. L., Harrist, R. B., Hadlock, F. P., & Carpenter, R. J. (1982) · Journal of Clinical Ultrasound · doi:10.1002/jcu.1870100803 · Cited by 47
SARMANDAL, P., BAILEY, S. M., & Grant, J. M. (1989) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03222.x · Cited by 40
Measurement error for ultrasound fetal biometry performed by paramedics in rural Bangladesh
Neufeld, L. M., Wagatsuma, Y., Hussain, R., Begum, M. M., & Frongillo, E. A. (2009) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.6385 · Cited by 36
Accuracy and Reproducibility of Ultrasound Measurements in Obstetric Management
Nakai, A., & Oya, A. (2002) · Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation · doi:10.1159/000064694 · Cited by 20
Reliability of fetal anthropometry by ultrasound
Fescina, R. H., & Ucieda, F. J. (1980) · Journal of Perinatal Medicine · doi:10.1515/jpme.1980.8.2.93 · Cited by 19
Ultrasound anthropometric reliability
Harstad, T. W., Buschang, P. H., Little, B. B., Santos‐Ramos, R., Twickler, D. M., & Brown, C. E. (1994) · Journal of Clinical Ultrasound · doi:10.1002/jcu.1870220903 · Cited by 15
Gestational age: What to measure and when
Blum, L., & Kurtz, A. B. (1990) · Seminars in Roentgenology · doi:10.1016/0037-198x(90)90061-8 · Cited by 8
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cross‐sectional studies – what are they good for?
Kesmodel, U. S. (2018) · Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aogs.13331 · Cited by 527
International estimated fetal weight standards of the INTERGROWTH ‐21st Project
Stirnemann, J., Villar, J., Salomon, L. J., Ohuma, E. O., Pang, R., Altman, D. G., Nosten, F. H., Craik, R., Munim, S., Ismail, L. C., et al. (2017) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.17347 · Cited by 361
Self-citationIntrauterine Growth Restriction (IUGR): Etiology and Diagnosis
Suhag, A., & Berghella, V. (2013) · Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports · doi:10.1007/s13669-013-0041-z · Cited by 199
Ultrasound‐based gestational‐age estimation in late pregnancy
Papageorghiou, A. T., Kemp, B., Stones, W., Ohuma, E. O., Kennedy, S. H., Purwar, M., Salomon, L. J., Altman, D. G., Noble, J. A., Bertino, E., et al. (2016) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.15894 · Cited by 179
Self-citationRueda, S., Fathima, S., Knight, C. L., Yaqub, M. K., Papageorghiou, A. T., Rahmatullah, B., Foi, A., Maggioni, M., Pepe, A., Tohka, J., et al. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2013.2276943 · Cited by 177
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
