10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Detection of Fetal Anomalies by Remotely Directed and Interpreted Ultrasound (Teleultrasound): A Randomized Noninferiority Trial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective To determine the accuracy and reliability of remotely directed and interpreted ultrasound (teleultrasound) as compared with standard in-person ultrasound for the detection of fetal anomalies, and to determine participants' satisfaction with teleultrasound.

          Study Design This was a single-center, randomized (1:1) noninferiority study. Individuals referred to the maternal–fetal medicine (MFM) ultrasound clinic were randomized to standard in-person ultrasound and counseling or teleultrasound and telemedicine counseling. The primary outcome was major fetal anomaly detection rate (sensitivity). All ultrasounds were performed by registered diagnostic medical sonographers and interpretations were done by a group of five MFM physicians. After teleultrasound was completed, the teleultrasound patients filled out a satisfaction survey using a Likert scale. Newborn data were obtained from the newborn record and statewide birth defect databases.

          Results Of 300 individuals randomized in each group, 294 were analyzed in the remotely interpreted teleultrasound group and 291 were analyzed in the in-person ultrasound group. The sensitivity of sonographic detection of 28 anomalies was 82.14% in the control group and of 20 anomalies in the telemedicine group, it was 85.0%. The observed difference in sensitivity was 0.0286, much smaller than the proposed noninferiority limit of 0.05. Specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy were more than 94% for both groups. Patient satisfaction was more than 95% on all measures, and there were no significant differences in patient satisfaction based on maternal characteristics.

          Conclusion Teleultrasound is not inferior to standard in-person ultrasound for the detection of fetal anomalies. Teleultrasound was uniformly well received by patients, regardless of demographics. These key findings support the continued expansion of telemedicine services.

          Key Points

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Practice Bulletin No. 175: Ultrasound in Pregnancy.

              (2016)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                American Journal of Perinatology
                Am J Perinatol
                Georg Thieme Verlag KG
                0735-1631
                1098-8785
                January 10 2022
                January 2022
                November 22 2021
                January 2022
                : 39
                : 02
                : 113-119
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
                [2 ]College of Public Health, Arkansas Center for Birth Defects Research and Prevention, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
                [3 ]Department of Biostatistics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
                [4 ]Department of Epidemiology, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
                [5 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, Texas
                Article
                10.1055/s-0041-1739352
                34808687
                1f4cdd20-2bec-478e-9fbd-f1724450bd7b
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article