Advanced

Reproducibility and acceptability of ultrasound measurements of head–perineum distance

Benediktsdottir, Sigurlaug LU ; Salvesen, Kjell LU ; Hjartardottir, Hulda and Eggebø, Torbjørn M. (2018) In Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 97(1). p.97-103
Abstract

Introduction: We aimed to test the reproducibility of head–perineum distance (HPD) measurements using two different ultrasound devices and five examiners, to compare ultrasound measurements and clinical assessments and to study if ultrasound examinations were acceptable for women in labor. Material and methods: A reproducibility study was performed at Lund University Hospital, Sweden and Landspitali University Hospital, Iceland from February 2015 to February 2017. The study population comprised 40 healthy women in labor. HPD was measured with three replicate measurements from each woman with two different ultrasound devices, and the measurements were compared with clinical assessments. Acceptability was tested with a visual analog scale... (More)

Introduction: We aimed to test the reproducibility of head–perineum distance (HPD) measurements using two different ultrasound devices and five examiners, to compare ultrasound measurements and clinical assessments and to study if ultrasound examinations were acceptable for women in labor. Material and methods: A reproducibility study was performed at Lund University Hospital, Sweden and Landspitali University Hospital, Iceland from February 2015 to February 2017. The study population comprised 40 healthy women in labor. HPD was measured with three replicate measurements from each woman with two different ultrasound devices, and the measurements were compared with clinical assessments. Acceptability was tested with a visual analog scale (VAS), and the mean VAS score from both ultrasound devices was compared with the VAS score from clinical palpation. Results: The median time interval between start of examinations with devices was 10 min (range 1–26 min). The intra-observer repeatability coefficient was 4.3 mm and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95–0.98). The intraclass correlation coefficient between the two devices was 0.86 (95% CI 0.74–0.93) and limits of agreement were −9.6 mm to 16.6 mm. However, we observed a significant mean HPD difference between devices (3.5 mm; 95% CI 1.4–5.6 mm). Clinical assessments and the mean measurements of HPD were correlated (r = 0.64, p < 0.01). We found significant differences in acceptability in favor of ultrasound. The mean VAS score for both ultrasound devices was 2.0 vs. 4.1 for clinical examination (p < 0.01). Conclusion: We found excellent intra-observer repeatability, good correlation but significant difference between devices. Women reported less discomfort with ultrasound than with clinical examinations.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Delivery, head–perineum distance, labor, perineum, ultrasound
in
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
volume
97
issue
1
pages
7 pages
publisher
Wiley-Blackwell
external identifiers
  • scopus:85035128736
ISSN
0001-6349
DOI
10.1111/aogs.13251
language
English
LU publication?
no
id
a2c1f39c-1974-4d3f-892f-eb5384442a94
date added to LUP
2017-12-28 12:17:12
date last changed
2018-05-29 09:24:36
@article{a2c1f39c-1974-4d3f-892f-eb5384442a94,
  abstract     = {<p>Introduction: We aimed to test the reproducibility of head–perineum distance (HPD) measurements using two different ultrasound devices and five examiners, to compare ultrasound measurements and clinical assessments and to study if ultrasound examinations were acceptable for women in labor. Material and methods: A reproducibility study was performed at Lund University Hospital, Sweden and Landspitali University Hospital, Iceland from February 2015 to February 2017. The study population comprised 40 healthy women in labor. HPD was measured with three replicate measurements from each woman with two different ultrasound devices, and the measurements were compared with clinical assessments. Acceptability was tested with a visual analog scale (VAS), and the mean VAS score from both ultrasound devices was compared with the VAS score from clinical palpation. Results: The median time interval between start of examinations with devices was 10 min (range 1–26 min). The intra-observer repeatability coefficient was 4.3 mm and the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95–0.98). The intraclass correlation coefficient between the two devices was 0.86 (95% CI 0.74–0.93) and limits of agreement were −9.6 mm to 16.6 mm. However, we observed a significant mean HPD difference between devices (3.5 mm; 95% CI 1.4–5.6 mm). Clinical assessments and the mean measurements of HPD were correlated (r = 0.64, p &lt; 0.01). We found significant differences in acceptability in favor of ultrasound. The mean VAS score for both ultrasound devices was 2.0 vs. 4.1 for clinical examination (p &lt; 0.01). Conclusion: We found excellent intra-observer repeatability, good correlation but significant difference between devices. Women reported less discomfort with ultrasound than with clinical examinations.</p>},
  author       = {Benediktsdottir, Sigurlaug and Salvesen, Kjell and Hjartardottir, Hulda and Eggebø, Torbjørn M.},
  issn         = {0001-6349},
  keyword      = {Delivery,head–perineum distance,labor,perineum,ultrasound},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {01},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {97--103},
  publisher    = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  series       = {Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica},
  title        = {Reproducibility and acceptability of ultrasound measurements of head–perineum distance},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13251},
  volume       = {97},
  year         = {2018},
}