Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
PHASE3
320 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2012-07-31
2014-09-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
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.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
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.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Keywords
Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
1
self assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images followed by automatically generated feedback
Self assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images
self assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images followed by automatically generated feedback
2
assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images by expert, followed by automatically generated feedback
assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images by expert
assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images by expert, followed by automatically generated feedback
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Self assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images
self assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images followed by automatically generated feedback
assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images by expert
assessment of ultrasound fetal biometry images by expert, followed by automatically generated feedback
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Single pregnancy
* gestational age at ultrasound: 18-36
Exclusion Criteria
* multiple pregnancy
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Marc Dommergues, MD, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Collège Français d'échographie Foetale
Montpellier, , France
Groupe Hospitalier Pitié Salpetrière
Paris, , France
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Marc Dommergues, MD, PhD
Role: primary
Marc Dommergues, MD, PhD
Role: primary
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
AOR08021
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id