Maintaining quality assurance for sonographic nuchal translucency measurement: Lessons from the FASTER trial

M. E. D'Alton, J. Cleary-Goldman, G. Lambert-Messerlian, R. H. Ball, D. A. Nyberg, C. H. Comstock, R. Bukowski, R. L. Berkowitz, Pe'er Dar, L. Dugoff, S. D. Craigo, I. E. Timor, S. R. Carr, H. M. Wolfe, K. Dukes, J. A. Canick, F. D. Malone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To evaluate nuchal translucency measurement quality assurance techniques in a large-scale study. Methods From 1999 to 2001, unselected patients with singleton gestations between 10 + 3 weeks and 13 + 6 weeks were recruited from 15 centers. Sonographic nuchal translucency measurement was performed by trained technicians. Four levels of quality assurance were employed: (1) a standardized protocol utilized by each sonographer; (2) local-image review by a second sonographer; (3) central-image scoring by a single physician; and (4) epidemiological monitoring of all accepted nuchal translucency measurements cross-sectionally and over time. Results Detailed quality assessment was available for 37018 patients. Nuchal translucency measurement was successful in 96.3% of women. Local reviewers rejected 0.8% of images, and the single central physician reviewer rejected a further 2.9%. Multivariate analysis indicated that higher body mass index, earlier gestational age and transvaginal probe use were predictors offailure ofnuchal translucency measurement and central image rejection (P = 0.001). Epidemiological monitoring identified a drift in measurements over time. Conclusion Despite initial training and continuous image review, changes in nuchal translucency measurements occur over time. To maintain screening accuracy, ongoing quality assessment is needed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)142-146
Number of pages5
JournalUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume33
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Nuchal Translucency Measurement
Epidemiological Monitoring
Physicians
Gestational Age
Body Mass Index
Multivariate Analysis
Pregnancy

Keywords

  • Down syndrome screening
  • Nuchal translucency
  • Quality assessment
  • Quality assurance
  • Ultrasound

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
  • Reproductive Medicine

Cite this

D'Alton, M. E., Cleary-Goldman, J., Lambert-Messerlian, G., Ball, R. H., Nyberg, D. A., Comstock, C. H., ... Malone, F. D. (2009). Maintaining quality assurance for sonographic nuchal translucency measurement: Lessons from the FASTER trial. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 33(2), 142-146. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6265

Maintaining quality assurance for sonographic nuchal translucency measurement : Lessons from the FASTER trial. / D'Alton, M. E.; Cleary-Goldman, J.; Lambert-Messerlian, G.; Ball, R. H.; Nyberg, D. A.; Comstock, C. H.; Bukowski, R.; Berkowitz, R. L.; Dar, Pe'er; Dugoff, L.; Craigo, S. D.; Timor, I. E.; Carr, S. R.; Wolfe, H. M.; Dukes, K.; Canick, J. A.; Malone, F. D.

In: Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 33, No. 2, 02.2009, p. 142-146.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

D'Alton, ME, Cleary-Goldman, J, Lambert-Messerlian, G, Ball, RH, Nyberg, DA, Comstock, CH, Bukowski, R, Berkowitz, RL, Dar, P, Dugoff, L, Craigo, SD, Timor, IE, Carr, SR, Wolfe, HM, Dukes, K, Canick, JA & Malone, FD 2009, 'Maintaining quality assurance for sonographic nuchal translucency measurement: Lessons from the FASTER trial', Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 142-146. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6265
D'Alton, M. E. ; Cleary-Goldman, J. ; Lambert-Messerlian, G. ; Ball, R. H. ; Nyberg, D. A. ; Comstock, C. H. ; Bukowski, R. ; Berkowitz, R. L. ; Dar, Pe'er ; Dugoff, L. ; Craigo, S. D. ; Timor, I. E. ; Carr, S. R. ; Wolfe, H. M. ; Dukes, K. ; Canick, J. A. ; Malone, F. D. / Maintaining quality assurance for sonographic nuchal translucency measurement : Lessons from the FASTER trial. In: Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2009 ; Vol. 33, No. 2. pp. 142-146.
@article{b8d3f54c32cc43e48e3a056bac54399f,
title = "Maintaining quality assurance for sonographic nuchal translucency measurement: Lessons from the FASTER trial",
abstract = "Objective To evaluate nuchal translucency measurement quality assurance techniques in a large-scale study. Methods From 1999 to 2001, unselected patients with singleton gestations between 10 + 3 weeks and 13 + 6 weeks were recruited from 15 centers. Sonographic nuchal translucency measurement was performed by trained technicians. Four levels of quality assurance were employed: (1) a standardized protocol utilized by each sonographer; (2) local-image review by a second sonographer; (3) central-image scoring by a single physician; and (4) epidemiological monitoring of all accepted nuchal translucency measurements cross-sectionally and over time. Results Detailed quality assessment was available for 37018 patients. Nuchal translucency measurement was successful in 96.3{\%} of women. Local reviewers rejected 0.8{\%} of images, and the single central physician reviewer rejected a further 2.9{\%}. Multivariate analysis indicated that higher body mass index, earlier gestational age and transvaginal probe use were predictors offailure ofnuchal translucency measurement and central image rejection (P = 0.001). Epidemiological monitoring identified a drift in measurements over time. Conclusion Despite initial training and continuous image review, changes in nuchal translucency measurements occur over time. To maintain screening accuracy, ongoing quality assessment is needed.",
keywords = "Down syndrome screening, Nuchal translucency, Quality assessment, Quality assurance, Ultrasound",
author = "D'Alton, {M. E.} and J. Cleary-Goldman and G. Lambert-Messerlian and Ball, {R. H.} and Nyberg, {D. A.} and Comstock, {C. H.} and R. Bukowski and Berkowitz, {R. L.} and Pe'er Dar and L. Dugoff and Craigo, {S. D.} and Timor, {I. E.} and Carr, {S. R.} and Wolfe, {H. M.} and K. Dukes and Canick, {J. A.} and Malone, {F. D.}",
year = "2009",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1002/uog.6265",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "142--146",
journal = "Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology",
issn = "0960-7692",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Maintaining quality assurance for sonographic nuchal translucency measurement

T2 - Lessons from the FASTER trial

AU - D'Alton, M. E.

AU - Cleary-Goldman, J.

AU - Lambert-Messerlian, G.

AU - Ball, R. H.

AU - Nyberg, D. A.

AU - Comstock, C. H.

AU - Bukowski, R.

AU - Berkowitz, R. L.

AU - Dar, Pe'er

AU - Dugoff, L.

AU - Craigo, S. D.

AU - Timor, I. E.

AU - Carr, S. R.

AU - Wolfe, H. M.

AU - Dukes, K.

AU - Canick, J. A.

AU - Malone, F. D.

PY - 2009/2

Y1 - 2009/2

N2 - Objective To evaluate nuchal translucency measurement quality assurance techniques in a large-scale study. Methods From 1999 to 2001, unselected patients with singleton gestations between 10 + 3 weeks and 13 + 6 weeks were recruited from 15 centers. Sonographic nuchal translucency measurement was performed by trained technicians. Four levels of quality assurance were employed: (1) a standardized protocol utilized by each sonographer; (2) local-image review by a second sonographer; (3) central-image scoring by a single physician; and (4) epidemiological monitoring of all accepted nuchal translucency measurements cross-sectionally and over time. Results Detailed quality assessment was available for 37018 patients. Nuchal translucency measurement was successful in 96.3% of women. Local reviewers rejected 0.8% of images, and the single central physician reviewer rejected a further 2.9%. Multivariate analysis indicated that higher body mass index, earlier gestational age and transvaginal probe use were predictors offailure ofnuchal translucency measurement and central image rejection (P = 0.001). Epidemiological monitoring identified a drift in measurements over time. Conclusion Despite initial training and continuous image review, changes in nuchal translucency measurements occur over time. To maintain screening accuracy, ongoing quality assessment is needed.

AB - Objective To evaluate nuchal translucency measurement quality assurance techniques in a large-scale study. Methods From 1999 to 2001, unselected patients with singleton gestations between 10 + 3 weeks and 13 + 6 weeks were recruited from 15 centers. Sonographic nuchal translucency measurement was performed by trained technicians. Four levels of quality assurance were employed: (1) a standardized protocol utilized by each sonographer; (2) local-image review by a second sonographer; (3) central-image scoring by a single physician; and (4) epidemiological monitoring of all accepted nuchal translucency measurements cross-sectionally and over time. Results Detailed quality assessment was available for 37018 patients. Nuchal translucency measurement was successful in 96.3% of women. Local reviewers rejected 0.8% of images, and the single central physician reviewer rejected a further 2.9%. Multivariate analysis indicated that higher body mass index, earlier gestational age and transvaginal probe use were predictors offailure ofnuchal translucency measurement and central image rejection (P = 0.001). Epidemiological monitoring identified a drift in measurements over time. Conclusion Despite initial training and continuous image review, changes in nuchal translucency measurements occur over time. To maintain screening accuracy, ongoing quality assessment is needed.

KW - Down syndrome screening

KW - Nuchal translucency

KW - Quality assessment

KW - Quality assurance

KW - Ultrasound

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=59949092126&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=59949092126&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/uog.6265

DO - 10.1002/uog.6265

M3 - Article

C2 - 19173241

AN - SCOPUS:59949092126

VL - 33

SP - 142

EP - 146

JO - Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

JF - Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

SN - 0960-7692

IS - 2

ER -