Image-scoring system for crown-rump length measurement
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [26]
Cites
Snijders, R., Noble, P., Sebire, N., Souka, A., & Nicolaides, K. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)11280-6 · Cited by 1,572 · see citing works
<scp>ISUOG</scp> Practice Guidelines: performance of first‐trimester fetal ultrasound scan
(2013) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.12342 · Cited by 621 · see citing works
Self-citationPredicting delivery date by ultrasound and last menstrual period in early gestation
Taipale, P. (2001) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(00)01131-5 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ISUOG Practice Guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth
Salomon, L. J., Alfirevic, Z., Da Silva Costa, F., Deter, R. L., Figueras, F., Ghi, T., Glanc, P., Khalil, A., Lee, W., Napolitano, R., et al. (2019) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.20272 · Cited by 704 · see citing works
Self-citationUltrasound‐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 · see citing works
Self-citationNapolitano, R., Donadono, V., Ohuma, E. O., Knight, C. L., Wanyonyi, S. Z., Kemp, B., Norris, T., & Papageorghiou, A. T. (2016) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.15956 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Self-citationMaraci, M. A., Yaqub, M., Craik, R., Beriwal, S., Self, A., von Dadelszen, P., Papageorghiou, A., & Noble, J. A. (2020) · Journal of medical imaging · doi:10.1117/1.jmi.7.1.014501 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines
Boureka, E., Tsakiridis, I., Michos, G., Liberis, A., Giouleka, S., Mamopoulos, A., Kalogiannidis, I., & Dagklis, T. (2026) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics16111695
- 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