- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT02074592
Self Assessment of Fetal Ultrasound Images (SAVE US)
Self Assessment Vs. Expert for Fetal Ultra Sound Biometry Images
To improve the quality of fetal ultrasound images, self assessment is less resource consuming than assessment by an expert reviewer, and may be as effective.
To test this hypothesis, we randomize volunteer experienced ultrasonographers into two groups.
One group assess their own images (self assessment). The other group has their images assessed by an expert. Images are audited via the internet in a standardized procedure that generates feedback with recommendation for change.
Three to 6 months later, participants are audited again. If the improvement in image quality turns to be the same in both groups, it will be likely that self assessment is indeed as effective as assessment by an expert reviewer - at least for professionals experienced in fetal ultrasound.
Study Overview
Status
Detailed Description
Background: Audit and feedback based on image scoring by an expert improve ultrasound image quality, but is time consuming. Self assessment of ultrasound still images might be an alternative to assessment by an expert.
Objective. To compare image quality improvement following self assessment of fetal biometry images versus audit and feedback by an expert.
Methods. Study design: prospective blinded randomised controlled trial. Inclusions Doctors or midwifes experienced in the field of fetal ultrasound, are solicited by email to enrol. Volunteers upload a first set of 30 biometry images (10 cephalic, 10 abdominal and 10 femoral) obtained from 10 consecutive screening scans performed in the second or third trimester of pregnancy. Abnormal scans are excluded.
Randomization:
After uploading the first set of images, ultrasonographers are randomised with a 1:1 ratio * Arm 1: Ultrasonographers assess their own images online according to a standardized procedure. They receive an automatically generated report with detailed recommendations for change.
Their images are also audited by an expert, but the result of this audit remains concealed to the ultrasonographer
* Arm 2: Ultrasonographers do not assess their own images. Their images are assessed by an expert according to the same standardized online procedure. They receive an automatically generated report with detailed recommendations for change.
Follow up Three to 6 months later, ultrasonographers are asked to upload a second set of 30 biometry images. Images are audited by an expert reviewer using the same standardized online procedure as for the first set.
Online image scoring procedure:
The procedure is the same whether the reviewer is the ultrasonographer himself or an expert.
Uploaded images are presented to the reviewer after an automatic black contour concealed the identity of the patient and ultrasonographer.
Images are presented on the left hand side of the screen. Buttons on the right hand side are clicked according to the presence or absence of quality criteria. Online help provides specifics on each criterion, together with typical images.
Scoring criteria are derived from L. J. SALOMON, et al Ultrasound Obstetric Gynecology 2006; 27: 34-40).
For each set of images sent by a given ultrasonographer, image quality is evaluated based on:
- the percentage of images meeting all criteria (IMAC)
- the mean of a score based on attributing one point per criterion present on a given image.
Feed back and recommendations for change A feedback adapted to the scoring results is generated automatically. It provides the ultrasonographer with the percentage of IMAC, and a mean score, overall and for each type of image. Whenever a criterion is not met, a pop up window shows the corresponding image and a short document is displayed, with recommendations for change.
Data collected:
- Gestational age
- Demographic characteristics of professionals enrolled: age, gender, experience in fetal ultrasound (years), medical doctor vs. midwife, fetal ultrasound practice (screening only, vs. screening plus referral ultrasound), medical practice other than fetal ultrasound, continuous medical education in the field of fetal biometry, membership of the French College of fetal ultrasonography.
- For each set and type of image:
- percentage of IMAC
- mean score
Main outcome :
Improvement in the mean percentage of IMAC between the first and the second set of images
Secondary outcomes:
Improvement in the mean percentage of IMAC between the first and the second series of cephalic images Improvement in the mean percentage of IMAC between the first and the second series of abdomen images Improvement in the mean percentage of IMAC between the first and the second series of femur images Difference in mean score, overall and for each image type, between the first and the second set of images.
Subgroup analysis may be performed based on ultrasonographers characteristics. The agreement between self assessment and audit by expert reviewers will be analysed Statistical analysis A descriptive analysis of data will be done. An equivalence test for quantitative data will be done to study the main and secondary outcomes.
Subgroups analysis will be made for each image type. Agreement between self assessment and expert audit will be evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient method.
For all tests, a value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Number of participants to be included The mean increase in the percentage of IMAC for each ultrasonographer (Δ% IMAC) is the main outcome. The equivalence in Δ% IMAC between the two arms will be tested.
We choose the following equivalence margins: ± 6.67% (i.e. a difference of 2 IMAC for each set of 30 images). The standard deviation of Δ% IMAC observed in a previous study was 20. This study showed a Δ% IMAC of 15% after audit and feedback (i.e. 4 to 5 images improved).
For a two sided alpha of 5% and a power of 80%, 156 ultrasonographers are needed in each group. We thus expect to enrol 320 ultrasonographers in the study.
Expected results. Equivalence in improvement of image quality in the self assessment and the expert audit group.
This would suggest that online self assessment may be as effective as audit by an expert to improve ultrasound image quality.
Study Type
Enrollment (Anticipated)
Phase
- Phase 3
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
- Name: Marc Dommergues, MD, PhD
- Phone Number: 0033608486925
- Email: marc.dommergues@psl.aphp.fr
Study Locations
-
-
-
Montpellier, France, 34000
- Recruiting
- Collège Français d'échographie Foetale
-
Contact:
- Marc Dommergues, MD, PhD
-
¨Paris, France, 75013
- Recruiting
- Groupe Hospitalier Pitie Salpetriere
-
Contact:
- Marc Dommergues, MD, PhD
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Child
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion criteria :
- Volunteer ultrasonographers
- Single pregnancy
- gestational age at ultrasound: 18-36
Exclusion criteria :
- any fetal structural abnormality identified during ultrasound
- multiple pregnancy
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Single
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Experimental: 1
self assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images followed by automatically generated feedback
|
self assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images followed by automatically generated feedback
|
Active Comparator: 2
assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images by expert, followed by automatically generated feedback
|
assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images by expert, followed by automatically generated feedback
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Time Frame |
---|---|
Increase in the percentage of IMAC at 3-6 months after inclusion comparing the group with self-assessment and the group with assessment by expert.
Time Frame: 3-6 months
|
3-6 months
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Time Frame |
---|---|
Increase in mean images quality score at 3-6 months comparing the group with self-assessment and the group with assessment by expert
Time Frame: 3-6 months
|
3-6 months
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Marc Dommergues, MD, PhD, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Primary Completion (Anticipated)
Study Completion (Anticipated)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimate)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Estimate)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Other Study ID Numbers
- AOR08021
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.
Clinical Trials on Impact of Self Assessment of Foetal Ultrasound Images on Image Quality
-
University Hospital, ToursCompletedQuality of Work Life of Psychiatric Nurses | Impact on Quality of Care
-
Medical University of GrazJoanneum Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbHCompletedThe Impact of Adipose Tissue Quality on Fat Graft RetentionAustria
-
Philips HealthcareCompletedCompare Image Quality Between SDCT and Conventional CT Images of Any Tissue Lesion, Determine Optimal Monochromatic Energy Level for a Coronary Artery ImageUnited States
-
JanuelUnknownThe Impact of Stigma on the Quality of Life of People With Schizophrenic Disorders and Their Siblings
-
Jagiellonian UniversityPiotr ChlostaUnknownTo Evaluate Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) and Their Impact on Quality of Life in Night WorkersPoland
-
Heidelberg UniversityUniversity of JenaCompletedInsulin Therapy | Metabolic Control | Impact of Structured DTTP on Quality of Life | Psychological Aspects
-
Medical University of ViennaUnknownQuality of Life | Morbidity | Breast Image Scale Index for Self Esteem Evaluation | Breast Symmetry Index | Oncological OutcomeAustria
-
Uppsala UniversityUppsala University HospitalTerminatedQuality of Life | Chronic Pain | Opioid-use Disorder | Risk Reduction | Assessment, SelfSweden
-
Laboratório de Pesquisa em Lazer e Atividade FísicaCentro de Pesquisas OncológicasCompletedQuality of Life | Pain | Breast Cancer | Fatigue | Lymphedema | Stress | Sleep Disturbance | Depressive Symptoms | Range of Motion | Body Image | Cardiorespiratory Fitness | Postural Balance | Self Esteem | Sexual Function Disturbances | Muscular Weakness | OptimismBrazil
Clinical Trials on Self assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images
-
Columbia UniversityCompletedTwin Twin Transfusion SyndromeUnited States
-
University of Massachusetts, WorcesterCompleted
-
The University of Texas Medical Branch, GalvestonRecruiting
-
University Hospital, MontpellierRecruiting
-
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisCompleted
-
The University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleCompleted
-
Nagasaki UniversityLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Siddhi Memorial FoundationNot yet recruitingPneumonia | Bronchiolitis | LRTI | Lower Respiratory InfectionNepal
-
Kaiser PermanenteCompleted
-
Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli...Prof. Massimo Cordaro; Dr. Romeo Patini; Dr. Oliva Giorgio; Dr. Candida Ettore; Dr... and other collaboratorsCompletedCicatrix | Cleft Lip and Palate | Randomized Controlled Trial | Growth and DevelopmentItaly