2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Utilization of third-trimester fetal transcerebellar diameter measurement for gestational age estimation: a comparative study using Bland-Altman analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          BACKGROUND

          Several studies show that gestational age estimation during the third trimester of pregnancy using fetal transcerebellar diameter is superior to that measured using fetal biometry (biparietal diameter, head circumference, abdominal circumference, and femur diaphysis length). However, the conclusion of the studies stemmed from findings of correlation and regression statistical tests, which are not the recommended statistical analysis methods for comparing the values of 1 variable as measured by 2 different methods.

          OBJECTIVE

          This study aimed to compare the accuracy of gestational age estimation using transcerebellar diameter to that using fetal biometry during the third trimester of pregnancy using Bland-Altman statistical analysis.

          STUDY DESIGN

          This was a cross-sectional study on pregnant women who presented for routine antenatal care follow-up in the third trimester of pregnancy (28–41 weeks of gestation) at St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College (Ethiopia) between November 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. Data were collected prospectively using a structured questionnaire on the Open Data Kit. The primary outcome of our study was the mean bias of gestational age estimation (error in estimating gestational age) using transcerebellar diameter and composite fetal biometry (composite gestational age). Data were analyzed using Stata (version 15; StataCorp, College Station, TX). Simple descriptive analysis, Bland-Altman analysis, and the Kendall τa discordance measurement were performed as appropriate. The mean bias (error) and limits of agreement were used to present the significance of the finding.

          RESULTS

          A total of 104 pregnant women in the third trimester were included in the study. The mean error (bias) when transcerebellar diameter was used to estimate the gestational age was 0.65 weeks vs a bias of 1.1 weeks using composite biometry, compared with the gold standard method from crown-lump length (in both cases). The calculated estimated limit of agreement was narrower in the case of transcerebellar diameter than in the case of composite fetal biometry (−3.56 to 2.25 vs −4.73 to 2.53). The Kendall τa discordance measurement revealed that gestational age estimations using composite biometry and crown-lump length were 51% to 70%, respectively, more likely to agree than disagree and that gestational age estimations using transcerebellar diameter and crown-lump length were 62% to 77%, respectively, more likely to agree than to disagree ( P≤.001).

          CONCLUSION

          Gestational age estimation using transcerebellar diameter is more accurate than gestational age estimation using composite gestational age (biparietal diameter, head circumference, femur diaphysis length, and abdominal circumference). Transcerebellar diameter should be used to date third-trimester pregnancies with unknown gestational age (unknown last normal menstrual period with no early ultrasound milestone).

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Understanding Bland Altman analysis

          In a contemporary clinical laboratory it is very common to have to assess the agreement between two quantitative methods of measurement. The correct statistical approach to assess this degree of agreement is not obvious. Correlation and regression studies are frequently proposed. However, correlation studies the relationship between one variable and another, not the differences, and it is not recommended as a method for assessing the comparability between methods.
In 1983 Altman and Bland (B&A) proposed an alternative analysis, based on the quantification of the agreement between two quantitative measurements by studying the mean difference and constructing limits of agreement.
The B&A plot analysis is a simple way to evaluate a bias between the mean differences, and to estimate an agreement interval, within which 95% of the differences of the second method, compared to the first one, fall. Data can be analyzed both as unit differences plot and as percentage differences plot.
The B&A plot method only defines the intervals of agreements, it does not say whether those limits are acceptable or not. Acceptable limits must be defined a priori, based on clinical necessity, biological considerations or other goals.
The aim of this article is to provide guidance on the use and interpretation of Bland Altman analysis in method comparison studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            ISUOG Practice Guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Bland-Altman analysis: A paradigm to understand correlation and agreement

              The rapid increase in the number of new laboratory methods has led to the necessity of reliable verification methods. Validation of a new measurement method for application to medical practice requires comparison with gold standard techniques. The Bland-Altman analysis is a frequently applied technique in studies that investigate the agreement between two methods of the same medical measurement. In this review, potential areas of usage of Bland-Altman analysis is elaborated from a clinical viewpoint, and possible pitfalls in study designs are discussed in statistical perspective.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                AJOG Glob Rep
                AJOG Glob Rep
                AJOG Global Reports
                Elsevier
                2666-5778
                11 January 2024
                February 2024
                11 January 2024
                : 4
                : 1
                : 100307
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (Drs Bekele, Gudu, Abdosh, and Sium)
                [2 ]St. Paul's Institute for Reproductive Health and Rights, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (Dr Wondafrash)
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author: Abraham Fessehaye Sium, MD. abrahamfessehaye4@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                S2666-5778(24)00001-7 100307
                10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100307
                10832473
                38304306
                075c09bc-461e-4aa1-afce-cc82c991bf30
                © 2024 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Original Research

                biometry,low-income setting,obstetrical ultrasound,pregnancy dating,transcerebellar diameter,unknown date

                Comments

                Comment on this article