Observational studyBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2025
Feasibility of a Standardised Mid-Trimester Ultrasound Protocol: A National Multicenter Study.
Observational study in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quality control of ultrasound at 11 to 14 weeks of gestation: results from the China Early Pregnancy Ultrasound Cohort.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveEvaluate the feasibility and quality of a national standardised mid-trimester ultrasound protocol using a consensus-based quality assessment (QA) scoring system.
designMulticenter prospective observational 'FLASH' study.
setting(i) Assessing the feasibility of a standardised protocol of 24 views at the mid-trimester scan, with 21 recommended and 3 additional views, in routine practice. (ii) Assessing the quality of these images by evaluating the presence of conformity criteria. (iii) Analysing the reliability between self-assessment and peer-assessment of the images. POPULATION: A total of 440 mid-trimester scans.
methodsA consensus-based QA scoring system comprising 73 conformity criteria was established with 28 experts using a 3-round Delphi method. Secondly, we asked operators to record 5 consecutive routine mid-trimester scans. Images were analysed by the sonographer themselves and by a qualified expert according to the scoring system. The frequency of recorded images was calculated for each of the views. Factors associated with missing images per scan were evaluated. The robustness of conformity criteria was assessed by reliability between self-evaluation and peer-evaluation.
main outcome measuresBased on 9849 images, we observed feasibility of the 21 recommended standardised views for mid-trimester scan ranging from 88.5% to 100%.
resultsMost conformity criteria (64/73, 88%) were met in over 90% of cases. Gwet's AC1 correlation between expert evaluation (peer-evaluation) and participant evaluation (self-evaluation) was greater than 0.80 for 70/73 (96%) criteria.
conclusionThis large-scale 2-month 'flash' observational study demonstrates the feasibility and quality of a national standardised mid-trimester ultrasound protocol using a consensus-based QA scoring system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.