Intraobserver and interobserver variability of transabdominal Doppler velocimetry measurements of the fetal ductus venosus between 10 and 14 weeks of gestation

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Normal Reference Ranges of Ductus Venosus Doppler Indices in the Period from 14 to 40 Weeks’ Gestation

“…This is consistent with those reported in previous studies [17]. We have found higher variations in measurement in early gestation compared to late pregnancy; this is consistent with what was observed by Mavrides et al [20] and Prefumo et al [21], who showed that DV Doppler assessment during early pregnancy seems to have a reduced reproducibility.…”

“…The strengths of this study are: (1) the adequate sample size for each gestational week, and (2) that we also included fetuses in the early second trimester [14,15,16,17,18,19,20], unlike most other studies. Moreover, interobserver variations of the measurement are acceptable.…”

Assessment of ductus venosus flow during the first and early second trimesters: what can we expect?

“…One group 3 reports better repeatability than the other and they seem to be satisfied with their good intra-and interobserver repeatability, whereas the other group 4 reports only a good intraobserver repeatability for the measurement of the pulsatility index, but not for velocity measurements, and unsatisfactory results for the interobserver reproducibility. It is difficult to interpret the reliability of findings regarding the agreement for the classification of normal/abnormal flow based on the criterion of forward/reversed flow during atrial contraction, as the number of fetuses with abnormal waveforms was very low, which has to be expected in a lowrisk population.…”

“…So, how should waveforms with forward and reversed flow occurring in the same fetus or even synchronously during the same registration period be measured and classified? This problem may lead to the poor interobserver reproducibility of the S/ D ratio 4 and is exemplified by the illustrative images of Doppler signals in this issue 4,6 .…”

“…In this issue of the Journal, two papers address the first question 3,4 . One group 3 reports better repeatability than the other and they seem to be satisfied with their good intra-and interobserver repeatability, whereas the other group 4 reports only a good intraobserver repeatability for the measurement of the pulsatility index, but not for velocity measurements, and unsatisfactory results for the interobserver reproducibility.…”