Cited by 51Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsReliability and Agreement in MeasurementUltrasound in Clinical Applications

Image-scoring system for crown-rump length measurement

Wanyonyi, S. Z., Napolitano, R., Ohuma, E. O., Salomon, L. J., Papageorghiou, A. T.·2014·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate an objective image-scoring system for crown-rump length (CRL) measurements and to determine how this compares with subjective assessment. METHODS: A total of 125 CRL ultrasound images were selected from the database of the International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21(st) Century study group. Two reviewers, who were blinded to the operators' and to each others' results, evaluated all images both subjectively and objectively. Subjective evaluation consisted of rating an image as acceptable or unacceptable, while objective evaluation was based on six criteria. Reviewer differences for both the subjective and objective evaluations were compared using percentage of agreement and adjusted kappa values. RESULTS: The distribution of individual scores and differences between subjective and objective evaluation for the two reviewers was similar. Overall agreement between the reviewers was higher for objective evaluation (95.2%; adjusted κ, 0.904), than for subjective evaluation (77.6%; adjusted κ, 0.552). There was a high level of agreement for horizontal position (κ = 0.951), magnification (κ = 0.919), visualization of crown and rump (κ = 0.806) and caliper placement (κ = 0.756), while agreement for mid-sagittal section (κ = 0.629) and neutral position (κ = 0.565) were moderate and poor, respectively. CONCLUSION: The proposed six-point scoring system for CRL image rating is more reproducible than is subjective evaluation and should be considered as a method of quality assessment and audit.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.13376

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Crown-rump length measurement following a standardized technique is recommended by all medical societies.

    “Notably, the CRL measurement, following a standardized technique, is recommended by all medical societies [25,26].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wanyonyi, S. Z., Napolitano, R., Ohuma, E. O., Salomon, L. J., & Papageorghiou, A. T.
Affiliations
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades (FR)
Corresponding author
Papageorghiou, A. T.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-12
Volume
44
Issue
6
Pages
649-654
ISSN
0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1993360739
Cited by
51
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
4.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (49038)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
Keywords
crown-rump length, prenatal ultrasound, subjective versus objective assessment, interobserver agreement, quality assessment, fetal biometry
MeSH terms
Decision Support Techniques, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Single-Blind Method, Databases, Factual, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Crown-Rump Length

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