4.4 Article

Reproducibility of fetal lung-to-head ratio in left diaphragmatic hernia across the North American Fetal Therapy Network (NAFTNet)

Journal

PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS
Volume 39, Issue 3, Pages 188-194

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pd.5413

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development [5R13HD059293-05]
  2. Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto Dept. of Obstetrics Gynaecology
  3. University Health Network Research Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To determine the antenatal sonographic lung area measurement method in left congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) with the highest interrater agreement among North American Fetal Therapy Network (NAFTNet) centers within and outside the fetoscopic tracheal occlusion (FETO) consortium and in comparison with a European expert reviewer (ER). Methods Nineteen members from nine FETO consortium centers and 29 reviewers from 17 non-FETO centers reviewed ultrasound clips of the chest from 13 fetuses with isolated left CDH and were asked to select a static plane for lung area measurement using anteroposterior (AP), longest, and trace methods. Interrater agreement in lung area measurements was determined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Bland-Altman analysis was used to evaluate mean difference (bias) between NAFTNet reviewers and ER. Results Among FETO centers, agreement was highest using trace (ICC 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98), followed by longest (ICC 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75-0.97) and lowest for A-P (ICC 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-0.94). Similar trends were noted in non-FETO centers. When compared with ER, bias was lowest for trace: 14 +/- 38 mm(2) and 19 +/- 36 mm(2) for FETO and non-FETO centers, respectively. Conclusion The trace method demonstrated the highest interrater agreement and lowest bias for lung area estimation in left CDH across NAFTNet.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available