Quality assessment of routine nuchal translucency measurements: A North American laboratory perspective

44Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess nuchal translucency measurements that were performed as part of routine prenatal screening for Down syndrome. METHODS: Collect ultrasound measurements of nuchal translucency and crown rump length provided by individual sonographers over a 6-month period to six North American prenatal screening laboratories, along with the laboratory's nuchal translucency interpretation in multiples of the median. For sonographers with 50 or more observations, compute three nuchal translucency quality measures (medians, standard deviations, and slopes), based on epidemiological monitoring. RESULTS: Altogether, 23,462 nuchal translucency measurements were submitted by 850 sonographers. Among the 140 sonographers (16%) who submitted more than 50 observations, 76 (54%) were found to have all three quality measures in the target range. These 140 sonographers collectively accounted for 14,210 nuchal translucency measurements (61%). The most common single measure to be out of range was nuchal translucency multiples of the median, found for 29 of the 140 sonographers (21%). CONCLUSION: Laboratories should routinely monitor the quality of nuchal translucency measurements that are received for incorporation into Down syndrome screening risk calculations and interpretations. When possible, instituting sonographer-specific medians and providing individualized feedback about performance and numbers of women tested offer the potential to yield more consistent and improved performance. ©2008The American College of Medical Genetics.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Palomaki, G. E., Neveux, L. M., Donnenfeld, A., Lee, J. E. S., McDowell, G., Canick, J. A., … Haddow, J. E. (2008). Quality assessment of routine nuchal translucency measurements: A North American laboratory perspective. Genetics in Medicine, 10(2), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181616bf8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free