Introduction: Standardization of first-trimester nuchal translucency (NT) image acquisition is crucial to the success of screening for Down syndrome. Rigorous audit of operator performance and constructive feedback from assessors maintain standards. This process relies on good inter-rater agreement on image assessment. We describe the Australian approach to NT image assessment and evaluate the impact of a targeted intervention on inter-rater agreement. Methods: Between 2002 and 2008 a group of experienced practitioners met nine times to compare their assessment of a series of NT images. Each assessor had previously scored the images according to a system described in 2002. Inter-rater agreement was evaluated before and after an intervention where the assessors were required to refer to a detailed resource manual designed to reduce the subjectivity inherent in image assessment. Results: There was a statistical improvement in inter-rater agreement for all elements of image assessment (original scores and individual component scores) after the intervention, apart from horizontal fetal position. However, even after the intervention, inter-rater agreement levels generally remained moderate (kappa range: 0.14–0.58). Conclusions: This study has shown that provision of detailed resource documentation to experienced assessors can significantly improve inter-rater agreement in all facets of NT image assessment. It also highlights areas of image assessment that require critical review. It is recommended that all audit bodies regularly review their inter-rater agreement to ensure consistent feedback to operators who submit images for expert peer review.

Keywords:
Nuchal translucency, Ultrasound, Audit, Inter-rater variability, Assessment, Intervention
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.