Expected‐value bias in routine third‐trimester growth scans. (2nd March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Drukker, L.; Droste, R.; Chatelain, P.; Noble, J. A.; Papageorghiou, A. T.
• Is Part Of: Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology. Volume 55:Number 3(2020)
• Page Start: 375
• Page End: 382
• Publication Date: 2020-03-02
• Subjects: artificial intelligence -- ascertainment bias -- detection bias -- expectancy bias -- eye tracking -- fetal biometry -- growth scan -- observer bias -- observer effect -- ultrasound; Ultrasonics in obstetrics -- Periodicals; Generative organs, Female -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Diagnosis, Ultrasonic -- Periodicals; Genital Diseases, Female -- ultrasonography -- Periodicals; Ultrasonography, Prenatal -- Periodicals; 618.047543
• DOI: 10.1002/uog.21929
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0960-7692

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Objectives: Operators performing fetal growth scans are usually aware of the gestational age of the pregnancy, which may lead to expected‐value bias when performing biometric measurements. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of expected‐value bias in routine fetal growth scans and assess its impact on standard biometric measurements. Methods: We collected prospectively full‐length video recordings of routine ultrasound growth scans coupled with operator eye tracking. Expected value was defined as the gestational age at the time of the scan, based on the estimated due date that was established at the dating scan. Expected‐value bias was defined as occurring when the operator looked at the measurement box on the screen during the process of caliper adjustment before saving a measurement. We studied the three standard biometric planes on which measurements of head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) are obtained. We evaluated the incidence of expected‐value bias and quantified the impact of biased measurements. Results: We analyzed 272 third‐trimester growth scans, performed by 16 operators, during which a total of 1409 measurements (354 HC, 703 AC and 352 FL; including repeat measurements) were obtained. Expected‐value bias occurred in 91.4% of the saved standard biometric plane measurements (85.0% for HC, 92.9% for AC and 94.9% for FL). The operators were more likely to adjust the measurements towards the expected value than away from it (47.7% vs 19.7% of measurements; P < 0.001). On average, measurements were corrected by 2.3 ± 5.6, 2.4 ± 10.4 and 3.2 ± 10.4 days of gestation towards the expected gestational age for the HC, AC, and FL measurements, respectively. Additionally, we noted a statistically significant reduction in measurement variance once the operator was biased ( P = 0.026). Comparing the lowest and highest possible estimated fetal weight (using the smallest and largest biased HC, AC and FL measurements), we noted that the discordance, in percentage terms, was 10.1% ± 6.5%, and that in 17% (95% CI, 12–21%) of the scans, the fetus could be considered as small‐for‐gestational age or appropriate‐for‐gestational age if using the smallest or largest possible measurements, respectively. Similarly, in 13% (95% CI, 9–16%) of scans, the fetus could be considered as large‐for‐gestational age or appropriate‐for‐gestational age if using the largest or smallest possible measurements, respectively. Conclusions: During routine third‐trimester growth scans, expected‐value bias frequently occurs and significantly changes standard biometric measurements obtained. © 2019 the Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.