Expected‐value bias in routine third‐trimester growth scans

Operators performing fetal growth scans are usually aware of the gestational age of the pregnancy, which may lead to expected‐value bias when performing biometric measurements. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of expected‐value bias in routine fetal growth scans and assess its impact on standard biometric measurements.

[1]  A. Sharp,et al.  Investigation and management of the small for gestational age fetus , 2020 .

[2]  J Alison Noble,et al.  Safety Indices of Ultrasound: Adherence to Recommendations and Awareness During Routine Obstetric Ultrasound Scanning , 2020, Ultraschall in der Medizin - European Journal of Ultrasound.

[3]  Pierre Chatelain,et al.  Evaluation of Gaze Tracking Calibration for Longitudinal Biomedical Imaging Studies , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics.

[4]  A. Odibo,et al.  Systematic error and cognitive bias in obstetric ultrasound , 2019, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[5]  J. Denny,et al.  Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety , 2019, BMJ Quality & Safety.

[6]  R. Courtland.  Bias detectives: the researchers striving to make algorithms fair , 2018, Nature.

[7]  C. Heneghan,et al.  Catalogue of bias: observer bias , 2018, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

[8]  D. Altman,et al.  International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project , 2014, The Lancet.

[9]  A. Papageorghiou,et al.  Pregnancy dating by fetal crown–rump length: a systematic review of charts , 2014, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[10]  A. Papageorghiou,et al.  A longitudinal study of normal fetal femur volume , 2013, Prenatal diagnosis.

[11]  D G Altman,et al.  Standardisation and quality control of ultrasound measurements taken in the INTERGROWTH‐21st Project , 2013, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[12]  I. Sarris,et al.  Ultrasound methodology used to construct the fetal growth standards in the INTERGROWTH‐21st Project , 2013, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[13]  J. Hilden,et al.  Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors , 2013, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[14]  K. Kagan,et al.  ISUOG Practice Guidelines: performance of first‐trimester fetal ultrasound scan , 2013, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[15]  A. Papageorghiou,et al.  Systematic review of methodology used in ultrasound studies aimed at creating charts of fetal size , 2012, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[16]  Y. Ville,et al.  Feasibility and reproducibility of an image‐scoring method for quality control of fetal biometry in the second trimester , 2005, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[17]  N. Dudley.  A systematic review of the ultrasound estimation of fetal weight , 2005, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[18]  Kenneth F Schulz,et al.  Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what , 2002, The Lancet.

[19]  G. Lip,et al.  ABC of hypertension. Blood pressure measurement. Part I-sphygmomanometry: factors common to all techniques. , 2001, BMJ.

[20]  Joseph H. Goldberg,et al.  Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols , 2000, ETRA.

[21]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Blinding in clinical trials and other studies , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  M. Mongelli,et al.  Screening for Fetal Growth Restriction: A Mathematical Model of the Effect of Time Interval and Ultrasound Error , 1998, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[23]  M. Brysbaert.  Arabic number reading: On the nature of the numerical scale and the origin of phonological recoding. , 1995 .

[24]  J. Engstrom,et al.  Fundal height measurement. Part 5--The effect of clinician bias on fundal height measurements. , 1994, Journal of nurse-midwifery.

[25]  F. P. Hadlock,et al.  In utero analysis of fetal growth: a sonographic weight standard. , 1991, Radiology.

[26]  D. Sackett.  Bias in analytic research. , 1979, Journal of chronic diseases.