A comparison of three methods of assessing inter‐observer variation applied to ultrasonic fetal measurement in the third trimester

The inter‐observer variation of fetal biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femoral length measured in the third trimester by ultrasound was studied by three different methods—coefficient of variation, correlation coefficient, and the 95% limits of agreement. The coefficients of variation were 1·6 to 3·7%, the correlation coefficients were 0·89 to 0·98 with P values of <0·001, yet the limits of agreement when applied to centile charts were found to be too wide to separate reliably small fetuses from those that were not small. We conclude that the limits of agreement is the preferred method of assessing inter‐observer variation, and we suggest that future research into growth retardation move away from ultrasonic measurements of the fetus.

[1]  R. Berkowitz,et al.  An evaluation of two equations for predicting fetal weight by ultrasound. , 1982, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[2]  J. Queenan,et al.  Growth of the ultrasound fetal femur length during normal pregnancy. Part I. , 1981, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[3]  P Sarmandal,et al.  A comparison of three methods of assessing interobserver variation applied to measurement of the symphysis‐fundal height , 1989, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[4]  G. Thurnau,et al.  A simple estimated fetal weight equation based on real-time ultrasound measurements of fetuses less than thirty-four weeks' gestation. , 1983, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  S. Campbell,et al.  ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENT OF FETAL ABDOMEN CIRCUMFERENCE IN THE ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT , 1975, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[6]  R. Sabbagha,et al.  Sonar biparietal diameter. I. Analysis of percentile growth differences in two normal populations using same methodology. , 1976, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[7]  R. Tamura,et al.  Percentile ranks of sonar fetal abdominal circumference measurements. , 1980, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[8]  J. Higginbottom,et al.  ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT FROM ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENT OF TRUNK CIRCUMFERENCE , 1975, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[9]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[10]  F. P. Hadlock,et al.  Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements--a prospective study. , 1985, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[12]  R. Tamura,et al.  Sonographic abdominal circumference: dynamic versus static imaging. , 1981, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  R. Berkowitz,et al.  The estimation of fetal weight by computer-assisted analysis. , 1977, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  S. Campbell,et al.  ULTRASOUND MEASUREMENT OF THE FETAL HEAD TO ABDOMEN CIRCUMFERENCE RATIO IN THE ASSESSMENT OF GROWTH RETARDATION , 1977, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.