Impact of biometric measurement error on identification of small‐ and large‐for‐gestational‐age fetuses

ABSTRACTObjectivesFirst, to obtain measurement‐error models for biometric measurements of fetal abdominal circumference (AC), head circumference (HC) and femur length (FL), and, second, to examine the impact of biometric measurement error on sonographic estimated fetal weight (EFW) and its effect on the prediction of small‐ (SGA) and large‐ (LGA) for‐gestational‐age fetuses with EFW < 10th and > 90th percentile, respectively.MethodsMeasurement error standard deviations for fetal AC, HC and FL were obtained from a previous large study on fetal biometry utilizing a standardized measurement protocol and both qualitative and quantitative quality‐control monitoring. Typical combinations of AC, HC and FL that gave EFW on the 10th and 90th percentiles were determined. A Monte‐Carlo simulation study was carried out to examine the effect of measurement error on the classification of fetuses as having EFW above or below the 10th and 90th percentiles.ResultsErrors were assumed to follow a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 0 mm and SDs, obtained from a previous well‐conducted study, of 6.93 mm for AC, 5.15 mm for HC and 1.38 mm for FL. Assuming errors according to such distributions, when the 10th and 90th percentiles are used to screen for SGA and LGA fetuses, respectively, the detection rates would be 78.0% at false‐positive rates of 4.7%. If the cut‐offs were relaxed to the 30th and 70th percentiles, the detection rates would increase to 98.2%, but at false‐positive rates of 24.2%. Assuming half of the spread in the error distribution, using the 10th and 90th percentiles to screen for SGA and LGA fetuses, respectively, the detection rates would be 86.6% at false‐positive rates of 2.3%. If the cut‐offs were relaxed to the 15th and 85th percentiles, respectively, the detection rates would increase to 97.0% and the false‐positive rates would increase to 6.3%.ConclusionsMeasurement error in fetal biometry causes substantial error in EFW, resulting in misclassification of SGA and LGA fetuses. The extent to which improvement can be achieved through effective quality assurance remains to be seen but, as a first step, it is important for practitioners to understand how biometric measurement error impacts the prediction of SGA and LGA fetuses. © 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.