A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Implementation of nuchal translucency image-scoring method during ongoing audit. | LitMetric

Implementation of nuchal translucency image-scoring method during ongoing audit.

Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, Tel Aviv University, Israel.

Published: December 1999

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the contribution of an ongoing audit, using the image-scoring method, to the quality of nuchal translucency images and to set the basic standards required from the examiners.

Design: Evaluation of nuchal translucency images, before, during and after the implementation of an ongoing audit, without knowledge of the time period or the examiner.

Subjects: A total of 315 nuchal translucency scans were performed by three examiners.

Methods: Each of the retrospective, intermediate and prospective time periods included blind scoring of 105 images. The effect of the ongoing audit was examined by comparing the distribution of the quality groups and the mean final score between the time periods, for all cases and for each examiner separately. Improvement of the criteria was assessed by comparing the rate of scans meeting the demands between the time periods.

Results: The quality of the images improved significantly as the mean final score changed from 4.62 +/- 0.21 to 6.19 +/- 0.19 and to 6.91 +/- 0.16 (p < 0.0001) and the rate of obtaining acceptable scans rose from 72% to 88% and to 92% (p < 0.001), respective to the three time periods. Whereas the three major criteria improved significantly before and after implementation of the audit (mid-sagittal section from 48% to 94%, caliper placement from 60% to 75% and skin line from 19% to 77%), the minor criteria remained unchanged (image size 90%, amnion demonstration 25% and head position 77%). The average scores of two examiners, for whom improvement was more pronounced, were used to determine the basic standards required from examiners subjected to the audit as follows: unacceptable, none; intermediate, 5%; reasonable, 65%; excellent, 30%; with a mean final score of 7.25.

Conclusions: Implementation of an ongoing audit, using the image-scoring method, proved to be an efficient method for surveillance and improving the quality of nuchal translucency images. We recommended centers or individuals practicing first-trimester ultrasound screening to consider its routine utilization, in an unbiased and strict manner.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14060388.xDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

nuchal translucency
20
ongoing audit
20
image-scoring method
12
translucency images
12
time periods
12
final score
12
audit image-scoring
8
quality nuchal
8
basic standards
8
standards required
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!