Delta‐NT and center‐specific ultrasound nuchal translucency medians

Santiago, J.C.; Ramos-Corpas, D.

doi:10.1002/uog.5171

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The second type of quality assurance is quantitative. Individual operator's specific NT distributions adjusted for CRL can be produced and compared against an accepted reference distribution …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuchal translucency measurement: are qualitative and quantitative quality control processes related?

Hermann

Fries²,

Mangione³

et al. 2013

Prenatal Diagnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuchal translucency measurement: are qualitative and quantitative quality control processes related?

Hermann

Fries²,

Mangione³

et al. 2013

Prenatal Diagnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, calculation of multiples of the median (MoM) values provides a useful parameter that can be used to assess variation between operators. The median NT‐MoM value should be 1.0 if the NT measurements of a single operator or group of operators do not deviate from the modeled median reference curve13–16. To ensure good quality NT measurements, the accepted median NT‐MoM of an operator should be limited, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of nuchal translucency measurements in The Netherlands: a quantitative analysis

Koster

Wortelboer

Engels³

et al. 2009

Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the LC software this is done by calculating the NT-MoM, while in Astraia the Δ-NT is used. However, it has been shown that the method of calculating a LR for the NT measurement has no large infl uence on the risk calculation [5,8] .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of risk calculation approaches in a screening programme for Down syndrome

Köster¹,

Heetkamp²,

Miranda³

et al. 2012

Jpme

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Netherlands, both the LifeCycle Elipse (LC) and the Astraia software package are used to calculate the risk of having a child with Down syndrome. Therefore, pregnant women can be presented with dissimilar risks. In this study the conformity between these risks before and after harmonization of the screening program and its influence on the performance indicators of the first trimester screening were evaluated. The agreement between combined risks (based on the biochemical parameters PAPP-A and fβ-hCG and a nuchal translucency measurement) was expressed as intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.99. Conformity between combined risks was better after harmonization (Cohen's κ=0.75) than before harmonization (Cohen's κ=0.63). For both risk calculation software packages the area under the ROC-curve was 0.84. The database contained 42 Down syndrome cases; based on the odds of being affected given a positive result (OAPR), LC performed slightly better than Astraia before harmonization (17.9 vs. 21.5, respectively). It has been acknowledged that using different software packages could lead to dissimilar risk calculations. In this study the screening performance indicators of two software packages were quite similar. The agreement of the screening performance after harmonization remains to be seen, but is expected to be even higher.

show abstract

Delta‐NT and center‐specific ultrasound nuchal translucency medians

Abstract: Objectives

Cited by 11 publications

References 28 publications

Nuchal translucency measurement: are qualitative and quantitative quality control processes related?

Nuchal translucency measurement: are qualitative and quantitative quality control processes related?

Quality of nuchal translucency measurements in The Netherlands: a quantitative analysis

Comparison of risk calculation approaches in a screening programme for Down syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About