Narrowed beam width in newer ultrasound machines shortens measurements in the lateral direction: fetal measurement charts may be obsolete
Abstract
Objectives: Fetal ultrasound measurements are made in axial, lateral and oblique directions. Lateral resolution is influenced by the beam width of the ultrasound system. To improve lateral resolution and image quality, the beam width has been made narrower; consequently, measurements in the lateral direction are affected and apparently made shorter, approaching the true length. The aims of this study were to explore our database to reveal time‐dependent shortening of ultrasound measurements made in the lateral direction, and to assess the extent of beam‐width changes by comparing beam‐width measurements made on old and new ultrasound machines. Methods: A total of 41 941 femur length measurements, collected during the time‐period 1987–2005, were analyzed, with time as a covariate. Using three ultrasound machines from the 1990s and three newer machines from 2007, we performed 25 series of blinded beam‐width measurements on a tissue‐mimicking phantom, measuring at depths of 3–8 cm with a 5‐MHz transducer. Results: Regression analysis showed time to be a significant covariate. At the same gestational age, femur length measurement was 1.15 (95% CI, 1.08–1.23) mm shorter in the time‐period 1999–2005 than in the time‐period 1987–1992. Overall, the beam width was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.50–1.65) mm narrower with the new machines than with the old machines. Conclusions: Technical improvements in modern ultrasound machines that have reduced the beam width affect fetal measurements in the lateral direction. This has clinical implications and new measurement charts are needed. Copyright © 2011 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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?
Technical improvements in modern ultrasound machines have reduced the beam width, which has affected fetal measurements in the lateral direction.
“Technical improvements in modern ultrasound machines have reduced the beam width, which has affected fetal measurements in the lateral direction 23 .”
From <scp>ISUOG</scp> Practice Guidelines (updated): performance of the routine mid‐trimester fetal ultrasound scan (2022) · cites this paper as [23]
Cites
A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF SONAR “CROWN‐RUMP LENGTH” MEASUREMENTS
Robinson, H. P., & Fleming, J. E. E. (1975) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1975.tb00710.x · Cited by 1,413 · see citing works
Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan
Salomon, L. J., Alfirevic, Z., Berghella, V., Bilardo, C., Hernandez‐Andrade, E., Johnsen, S. L., Kalache, K., Leung, K. ‐., Malinger, G., Munoz, H., et al. (2011) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.8831 · Cited by 1,006 · see citing works
Diagnostic ultrasound Imaging : Inside out
Farhat, G. (2005) · Ultraschall in der Medizin - European Journal of Ultrasound · doi:10.1055/s-2005-861725 · Cited by 769 · see citing works
Verburg, B. O., Steegers, E. A. P., de Ridder, M. A. J., Snijders, R. J. M., Smith, E. A., Albert Hofman, D., Moll, H. A., Jaddoe, V. W. V., & Witteman, J. C. M. (2008) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.5225 · Cited by 505 · see citing works
Fetal biometry at 14–40 weeks' gestation
Snijders, R. J. M., & Nicolaides, K. H. (1994) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1994.04010034.x · Cited by 501 · see citing works
Robinson, H. P. (1973) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.4.5883.28 · Cited by 392 · see citing works
Digital beamforming in ultrasound
Steinberg, B. D. (1992) · IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control · doi:10.1109/58.165556 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Leung, T. N., Pang, M. W., Sahota, D. S., Leung, T. Y., Poon, C. F., Wong, S. M., & Lau, T. K. (2008) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.5192 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Fetal Biometry: Clinical, Pathological, and Technical Considerations
Degani, S. (2001) · Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey · doi:10.1097/00006254-200103000-00023 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Underestimation of Gestational Age by Conventional Crown-Rump Length Dating Curves
MacGregor, S. N., Tamura, R. K., Sabbagha, R. E., Minogue, J. P., Me, G., & Di, H. (1987) · Journal of diagnostic medical sonography · doi:10.1177/875647938700300629 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Saltvedt, S., Almström, H., Kublickas, M., Reilly, M., Valentin, L., & Grünewald, C. (2004) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.1047 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
New crown–rump length curve based on over 3500 pregnancies
Pexsters, A., Daemen, A., Bottomley, C., Schoubroeck, D. V., Catte, L. D., Moor, B. D., D’Hooghe, T. M., Lees, C. C., Timmerman, D., & Bourne, T. (2010) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.7654 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population‐based approach
Gjessing, H. K., Grøttum, P., & Eik‐Nes, S. H. (2007) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.4053 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Self-citationPitfalls in femur length measurements.
Goldstein, R. B., Filly, R. A., & Simpson, G. B. (1987) · Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.7863/jum.1987.6.4.203 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
A New Digital Phased Array System for Dynamic Focusing and Steering with Reduced Sampling Rate
Song, T., & Park, S. B. (1990) · Ultrasonic Imaging · doi:10.1177/016173469001200101 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Tegnander, E., Eik‐Nes, S. H., & Linker, D. T. (1994) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1994.04010024.x · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Self-citation‘Ceci n’est pas une échographie': a plea for quality assessment in prenatal ultrasound
Ville, Y. G. (2007) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.5248 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Customized birth weight: coefficients and validation of models in a UK population
Sahota, D. S., Kagan, K. O., Lau, T. K., Leung, T. Y., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2008) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.5372 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Femur and humerus length in trisomy 21 fetuses at 11–14 weeks of gestation
Longo, D., Defigueiredo, D., Cicero, S., Sacchini, C., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2004) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.970 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Fetal age estimation by ultrasound: the impact of measurement errors.
Pretorius, D. H., Nelson, T. R., & Manco-Johnson, M. L. (1984) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.152.3.6463258 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Lack of standardization in determining gestational age for prenatal screening
Koster, M. P. H., van Leeuwen‐Spruijt, M., Wortelboer, E. J., Stoutenbeek, P., Elvers, L. H., Loeber, J. G., Visser, G. H. A., & Schielen, P. C. J. I. (2008) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.5347 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Økland, I., Gjessing, H. K., Grøttum, P., & Eik‐Nes, S. H. (2010) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.7707 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Self-citationØkland, I., Gjessing, H. K., Grøttum, P., Eggebø, T. M., & Eik‐Nes, S. H. (2010) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.7728 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Self-citationThe influence of ultrasound scanner beam width on femur length measurements
Jago, J. R., Whittingham, T. A., & Heslop, R. (1994) · Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology · doi:10.1016/0301-5629(94)90027-2 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Accuracy of Ultrasound in Fetal Femur Length Determination Ultrasound Phantom Study
GAMBA, J. L., Bowie, J. D., Dodson, W. C., & Hedlund, L. W. (1985) · Investigative Radiology · doi:10.1097/00004424-198505000-00016 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Medical ultrasound transducers and beamforming
Holm, S. (1995) · NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives · Cited by 9 · see citing works
A new digital phased array system for dynamic focusing and steering with reduced sampling rate
Song, T. (1990) · Ultrasonic Imaging · doi:10.1016/0161-7346(90)90217-l · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Salomon, L. J., Alfirevic, Z., Berghella, V., Bilardo, C. M., Chalouhi, G. E., Da Silva Costa, F., Hernandez‐Andrade, E., Malinger, G., Munoz, H., Paladini, D., et al. (2022) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.24888 · Cited by 436 · see citing works
Papageorghiou, A. T., Kennedy, S., Salomon, L. J., Altman, D. G., Ohuma, E. O., Stones, W. R., Gravett, M. G., Barros, F. C., Victora, C. G., Purwar, M., et al. (2018) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.011 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): performance of 11–14‐week ultrasound scan
International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bilardo, C. M., Chaoui, R., Hyett, J. A., Kagan, K. O., Karim, J. N., Papageorghiou, A. T., Poon, L. C., Salomon, L. J., Syngelaki, A., et al. (2023) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.26106 · Cited by 283 · see citing works
Dichorionic twin trajectories: the NICHD Fetal Growth Studies
Grantz, K. L., Grewal, J., Albert, P. S., Wapner, R. J., D’Alton, M. E., SCISCIONE, A. C., Grobman, W. A., Wing, D. A., Owen, J., Newman, R., et al. (2016) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.044 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Fetal growth velocity: the NICHD fetal growth studies
Grantz, K. L., Kim, S., Grobman, W. A., Newman, R., Owen, J., Skupski, D. W., Grewal, J., Chien, E. K., Wing, D. A., Wapner, R. J., et al. (2018) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.05.016 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Fetal growth velocity and body proportion in the assessment of growth
Hiersch, L., & Melamed, N. (2018) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.014 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Ultrasound methodology used to construct the fetal growth standards in the INTERGROWTH ‐21st Project
Papageorghiou, A. T., Sarris, I., Ioannou, C., Todros, T., de Carvalho, M. H. B., Pilu, G., & Salomon, L. J. (2013) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12313 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Ohuma, E. O., Villar, J., Feng, Y., Xiao, L., Salomon, L., Barros, F. C., Ismail, L. C., Stones, W. R., Jaffer, Y. A., Oberto, M., et al. (2020) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.07.054 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Stirnemann, J. J., Fries, N., Bessis, R., Fontanges, M., Mangione, R., & Salomon, L. J. (2017) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.17223 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Neonatal Cranial Ultrasound: Are Current Safety Guidelines Appropriate?
Lalzad, A., Wong, F. Y., & Schneider, M. E. (2016) · Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.11.002 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Current use and performance of the different fetal growth charts in the Italian population
Stampalija, T., Ghi, T., Rosolen, V., Rizzo, G., Ferrazzi, E. M., Prefumo, F., Dall’Asta, A., Quadrifoglio, M., Todros, T., & Frusca, T. (2020) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.06.059 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Intrauterine growth discordance across gestation and birthweight discordance in dichorionic twins
Amyx, M. M., Albert, P. S., Bever, A. M., Hinkle, S. N., Owen, J., Grobman, W. A., Newman, R., Chien, E. K., Gore‐Langton, R. E., Louis, G. M. B., et al. (2019) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2019.08.027 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Økland, I., Nakling, J., Gjessing, H. K., Grøttum, P., & Eik‐Nes, S. H. (2011) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.10081 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citationFetal biometry assessment with Intergrowth 21st’s and Salomon’s equations in rural Burkina Faso
Bihoun, B., Zango, S. H., Traoré‐Coulibaly, M., Valéa, I., Ravinetto, R., Geertruyden, J. V., D’Alessandro, U., Tinto, H., & Robert, A. R. (2020) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-020-03183-5 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
The Effect of Ultrasound Output Level on Obstetric Biometric Measurements
Sande, R. K., Matre, K., Eide, G. E., & Kiserud, T. (2012) · Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.08.011 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
International standards for fetal growth: relevance of advances in ultrasound technology
Morales‐Roselló, J., Hervás, D., Stirrup, O., Alfredo Perales, M., & Khalil, A. A. (2015) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.14875 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Crown–rump length measurement: a new age for first‐trimester ultrasound?
Stirnemann, J., Massoud, M., Fries, N., Dumont, C., Haddad, G., Bessis, R., Dhombres, F., & Salomon, L. J. (2021) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.23692 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Comparaison pragmatique des courbes de biométries fœtales élémentaires
Dhombres, F., & Massoud, M. (2023) · Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertilité & Sénologie · doi:10.1016/j.gofs.2023.09.003 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Knitza, J., Kurmanavičius, J., Faschingbauer, F., & Wisser, J. (2018) · Ultraschall in der Medizin - European Journal of Ultrasound · doi:10.1055/a-0591-3206 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
INTERGROWTH‐21st – Time to standardise fetal measurement in Australia
Westerway, S. C., Papageorghiou, A. T., Hirst, J. E., Costa, F. D. S., Hyett, J. A., & Walker, S. P. (2015) · Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.1002/j.2205-0140.2015.tb00206.x · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Paoletti, D., Smyth, L., Westerway, S. C., Hyett, J. A., Mogra, R., Haslett, S. J., & Peek, M. J. (2021) · Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.1002/ajum.12282 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
A comparison of four fetal biometry growth charts within an Australian obstetric population
Dry, C., Pedretti, M. K., Nathan, E., & Dickinson, J. E. (2022) · Australasian Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.1002/ajum.12290 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Update Reference Charts: Fetal Biometry between the 15th and 20th Week of Gestation
Kubiak, K., Koch, R., Klockenbusch, W., Steinhard, J., & Schmitz, R. (2016) · Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy · doi:10.1159/000443880 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Double Uterus with Single Cervix: A Case Report
Jahromy, M. G., Ansari, I., Jahromy, M. G., Rezagholizamenjany, M., Mirzadeh, S. M., & Jahromi, A. R. (2017) · Annals of Military and Health Sciences Research · doi:10.5812/amh.64494 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Estimating date of delivery and gestational age – technology, biology or both?
Bratlid, D. (2016) · Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening · doi:10.4045/tidsskr.16.0649
Biases in second-trimester ultrasound dating related to prediction models and fetal measurements
Økland, I. (2012) · NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives
Self-citationBihoun, B., Zango, S. H., Traoré‐Coulibaly, M., Valéa, I., Ravinetto, R., Van Geertruyden, J.-P., D’Alessandro, U., Tinto, H., & Robert, A. R. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12870254
- Authors
- Økland, I., Bjåstad, T. G., Johansen, T. F., Gjessing, H. K., Grøttum, P., & Eik‐Nes, S. H.
- Affiliations
- Stavanger University Hospital (NO)
- Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
- Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
- University of Oslo (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Økland, I.
- Venue
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-06-28
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 82-87
- ISSN
- 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0705
- OpenAlex
- W2030447998
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- 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
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography
- Keywords
- lateral resolution, fetal biometry, femur length, tissue phantoms, gestational age
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Biometry, Female, Femur, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, Second, Reference Values, Regression Analysis, Databases, Factual, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Phantoms, Imaging
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
