Cargando…

Virtual Compared With In-Clinic Transvaginal Ultrasonography for Ovarian Reserve Assessment

To evaluate noninferiority of virtual transvaginal ultrasonography compared with in-clinic ultrasonography for ovarian reserve assessment. METHODS: We conducted a single-site, head-to-head crossover trial. Participants performed self-administered virtual transvaginal ultrasonography at home, guided...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chung, Esther H., Petishnok, Laura C., Conyers, Jesse M., Schimer, David A., Vitek, Wendy S., Harris, Amy L., Brown, Michelle A., Jolin, Julie A., Karmon, Anatte, Styer, Aaron K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8936158/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35271530
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004698
_version_ 1784672165649448960
author Chung, Esther H.
Petishnok, Laura C.
Conyers, Jesse M.
Schimer, David A.
Vitek, Wendy S.
Harris, Amy L.
Brown, Michelle A.
Jolin, Julie A.
Karmon, Anatte
Styer, Aaron K.
author_facet Chung, Esther H.
Petishnok, Laura C.
Conyers, Jesse M.
Schimer, David A.
Vitek, Wendy S.
Harris, Amy L.
Brown, Michelle A.
Jolin, Julie A.
Karmon, Anatte
Styer, Aaron K.
author_sort Chung, Esther H.
collection PubMed
description To evaluate noninferiority of virtual transvaginal ultrasonography compared with in-clinic ultrasonography for ovarian reserve assessment. METHODS: We conducted a single-site, head-to-head crossover trial. Participants performed self-administered virtual transvaginal ultrasonography at home, guided by a remote-certified ultrasound technologist, then underwent transvaginal ultrasonography in-clinic with another ultrasound technologist. Participants were women in the greater Boston area interested in evaluating ovarian reserve and recruited through social media, health care referrals, and professional networks. The uterus and ovaries were captured in sagittal and transverse views. These randomized recordings were reviewed by two or three independent, blinded reproductive endocrinologists. The primary outcome was noninferiority of the rate of clinical quality imaging produced at home compared with in clinic. Sample size was selected for greater than 90% power, given the 18% noninferiority margin. Secondary outcomes included antral follicle count equivalency and net promoter score superiority. RESULTS: Fifty-six women were enrolled from December 2020 to May 2021. Participants varied in age (19–35 years), BMI (19.5–33.9), and occupation. Ninety-six percent of virtual and 98% of in-clinic images met “clinical quality.” The difference of −2.4% (97.5% CI lower bound −5.5%) was within the noninferiority margin (18%). Antral follicle counts were equivalent across settings, with a difference in follicles (0.23, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.82) within the equivalence margin (2.65). Virtual examinations had superior net promoter scores (58.1 points, 97.5% CI of difference 37.3–79.0, P<.01), indicating greater satisfaction with the virtual experience. CONCLUSION: Virtual transvaginal ultrasonography remotely guided by an ultrasonography technologist is noninferior to in-clinic transvaginal ultrasonography for producing clinical quality images and is equivalent for estimating antral follicle count. Virtual transvaginal ultrasonography had superior patient satisfaction and has potential to significantly expand patient access to fertility care. FUNDING SOURCE: This study was sponsored by Turtle Health. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04687189.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8936158
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89361582022-04-01 Virtual Compared With In-Clinic Transvaginal Ultrasonography for Ovarian Reserve Assessment Chung, Esther H. Petishnok, Laura C. Conyers, Jesse M. Schimer, David A. Vitek, Wendy S. Harris, Amy L. Brown, Michelle A. Jolin, Julie A. Karmon, Anatte Styer, Aaron K. Obstet Gynecol Contents To evaluate noninferiority of virtual transvaginal ultrasonography compared with in-clinic ultrasonography for ovarian reserve assessment. METHODS: We conducted a single-site, head-to-head crossover trial. Participants performed self-administered virtual transvaginal ultrasonography at home, guided by a remote-certified ultrasound technologist, then underwent transvaginal ultrasonography in-clinic with another ultrasound technologist. Participants were women in the greater Boston area interested in evaluating ovarian reserve and recruited through social media, health care referrals, and professional networks. The uterus and ovaries were captured in sagittal and transverse views. These randomized recordings were reviewed by two or three independent, blinded reproductive endocrinologists. The primary outcome was noninferiority of the rate of clinical quality imaging produced at home compared with in clinic. Sample size was selected for greater than 90% power, given the 18% noninferiority margin. Secondary outcomes included antral follicle count equivalency and net promoter score superiority. RESULTS: Fifty-six women were enrolled from December 2020 to May 2021. Participants varied in age (19–35 years), BMI (19.5–33.9), and occupation. Ninety-six percent of virtual and 98% of in-clinic images met “clinical quality.” The difference of −2.4% (97.5% CI lower bound −5.5%) was within the noninferiority margin (18%). Antral follicle counts were equivalent across settings, with a difference in follicles (0.23, 95% CI −0.36 to 0.82) within the equivalence margin (2.65). Virtual examinations had superior net promoter scores (58.1 points, 97.5% CI of difference 37.3–79.0, P<.01), indicating greater satisfaction with the virtual experience. CONCLUSION: Virtual transvaginal ultrasonography remotely guided by an ultrasonography technologist is noninferior to in-clinic transvaginal ultrasonography for producing clinical quality images and is equivalent for estimating antral follicle count. Virtual transvaginal ultrasonography had superior patient satisfaction and has potential to significantly expand patient access to fertility care. FUNDING SOURCE: This study was sponsored by Turtle Health. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04687189. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022-04 2022-03-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8936158/ /pubmed/35271530 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004698 Text en © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Contents
Chung, Esther H.
Petishnok, Laura C.
Conyers, Jesse M.
Schimer, David A.
Vitek, Wendy S.
Harris, Amy L.
Brown, Michelle A.
Jolin, Julie A.
Karmon, Anatte
Styer, Aaron K.
Virtual Compared With In-Clinic Transvaginal Ultrasonography for Ovarian Reserve Assessment
title Virtual Compared With In-Clinic Transvaginal Ultrasonography for Ovarian Reserve Assessment
title_full Virtual Compared With In-Clinic Transvaginal Ultrasonography for Ovarian Reserve Assessment
title_fullStr Virtual Compared With In-Clinic Transvaginal Ultrasonography for Ovarian Reserve Assessment
title_full_unstemmed Virtual Compared With In-Clinic Transvaginal Ultrasonography for Ovarian Reserve Assessment
title_short Virtual Compared With In-Clinic Transvaginal Ultrasonography for Ovarian Reserve Assessment
title_sort virtual compared with in-clinic transvaginal ultrasonography for ovarian reserve assessment
topic Contents
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8936158/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35271530
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004698
work_keys_str_mv AT chungestherh virtualcomparedwithinclinictransvaginalultrasonographyforovarianreserveassessment
AT petishnoklaurac virtualcomparedwithinclinictransvaginalultrasonographyforovarianreserveassessment
AT conyersjessem virtualcomparedwithinclinictransvaginalultrasonographyforovarianreserveassessment
AT schimerdavida virtualcomparedwithinclinictransvaginalultrasonographyforovarianreserveassessment
AT vitekwendys virtualcomparedwithinclinictransvaginalultrasonographyforovarianreserveassessment
AT harrisamyl virtualcomparedwithinclinictransvaginalultrasonographyforovarianreserveassessment
AT brownmichellea virtualcomparedwithinclinictransvaginalultrasonographyforovarianreserveassessment
AT jolinjuliea virtualcomparedwithinclinictransvaginalultrasonographyforovarianreserveassessment
AT karmonanatte virtualcomparedwithinclinictransvaginalultrasonographyforovarianreserveassessment
AT styeraaronk virtualcomparedwithinclinictransvaginalultrasonographyforovarianreserveassessment