HUTCHON TIMELINE

Hutchon Timeline

"«It can never happen here» has been the traditional saying in Norway when incidents of scientific dishonesty have been disclosed around the world. In a small country with a limited number of medical researchers, traditions for transparency and a strong belief in honesty, there has been a more or less naïve attitude to fraud and research misconduct." (Source: "Research misconduct: lessons to be learned?" Magne Nylenna. Michael 2007;4:7–9. or see PDF)

Hutchon Method of PDEE Timeline
Included below is the Hutchon Method Timeline which establishes the origin, provenance, dating and publications of Dr. David J. R. Hutchon's original idea, method and works, i.e., the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE). The Hutchon Timeline also establishes the appropriation, plagiarism, implementation and misuse of Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE. The following terms all refer to the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE).

Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE)
Hutchon Method of PDEE
Hutchon Method
PDEE

Plagiarism of Dr. David J. R. Hutchon's idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE).
Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 was published 19.07.1998 in OBGYN.net. The publications listed below are all based on Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE, without attribution. There are several additional publications which are also based on Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE, without attribution. Many of these are identified in the timeline.

NCFM Group's Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001 was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology 01.02.2001, 2 years, 6 months, 1 week, 6 days (928 days) after Hutchon 1998. The lead author, Pekka Taipale, was employed by NCFM and worked for Sturla H. Eik-Nes, head of NCFM Group. Uncharacteristically, Sturla H. Eik-Nes and Per Grøttum forewent authorship and contributorship credits, and all other acknowledgement of their supervision and contributions for Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001.]
NCFM Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 was published in UOG 08.09.2005, 7 years, 1 month, 2 weeks, 6 days (2,608 days) after Hutchon 1998.
NCFM Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 was published in UOG 08.06.2007, 8 years, 10 months, 2 weeks, 6 days (3,246 days) after Hutchon 1998.
Salomon et al. 2010 was published in The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 11.12.2009, 11 years, 4 months, 3 weeks, 1 day (4,163 days) after Hutchon 1998.
NCFM Group's Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis was published 13.01.2012, 13 years, 5 months, 3 weeks, 4 days (4,926 days) after Hutchon 1998. The 4 papers authored by NCFM Group which are included within Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis are all based on Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE, without attribution.

Dates in Red at the left margin indicate timeline entries with information regarding the publication of studies, papers, articles, brochures, reports, Letters to the Editor, Comment & Reply Correspondence, posters, abstracts, doctoral theses, etc. which are based on Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE (Hutchon 1998), without attribution. These publications constitute long-term, ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism.

START of Hutchon Method of PDEE Timeline

1995 Dr. David J. R. Hutchon, FROGC, former President of North of England Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society, started collecting ultrasound fetal metric measurements data, prospectively, in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Memorial Hospital, Hollyhurst Road, Darlington, Co. Durham DL3 6HX, UK in preparation for his subsequent retrospective study of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, while self-funding all of his own research while working full-time as a practicing obstetrician.

00.07.1996 Dr. Hutchon's paper "Menstrual and Ultrasound data - Which EDD" was published in Darlington Postgraduate Journal while he was conducting his study of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation at Memorial Hospital, Darlignton, England. It is important to note while Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation neither depends on a woman's LMPD nor a fixed gestation time, Dr. Hutchon nevertheless recognized, and continues to recognize, the importance of Direct GA Estimation and including all available information when GA and fetal age are assessed, in the practice of evidence-based medicine.

"We would argue, therefore, that the practice of the majority of practising obstetricians and midwives be continued [i.e., using LMP date and ultrasound data] until evidence for adopting the use of scan data alone is presented in a conclusive manner." (Source: Darlington Postgraduate Journal, July 1996. Renamed in 2007 to: Darlington and County Durham Medical Journal)

05.12.1996 Dr Hutchon made a special trip to London for an appointment he had arranged at the Welcome Library on 183 Euston Road to view an original copy of Hermanni Boerhaave's Praelectiones Academiae in Proprias Institutiones Rei Medica, MDCCXLIII [1743] Volume 2, Part 5 where Dr. Hutchon had established Boerhaave had provided his original proposal for estimating the date of delivery. The Welcome Library request number was 00126 and the book was located on the second floor. Neither photocopies nor ink pens were permitted, however, notes could be taken in pencil and the antiquarian book had to be handled with special gloves. Dr. Hutchon meticulously copied the Latin text in pencil, including all notes in the margins from pages 435, 436, 437 and 438. Moreover, and upon returning home, Dr. Hutchon translated the Latin text himself.

1996-1997 Dr. Hutchon conducted his study of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, again, funding it himself while working full-time as a practicing obstetrician. Professor Robson and Mr. Sturgiss from the Fetal Medicine Unit in Newcastle kindly assisted Dr. Hutchon's research by sending him a CRL dataset.

1997-1998 Dr. Hutchon wrote his manuscript which resulted in his seminal Hutchon 1998 titled "'Back to the Future" for Hermanni Boerhaave or 'a rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery'", published 19.07.1998 in OBGYN.net.

00.01.1998 Sturla H. Eik-Ness started his term as President of ISUOG (1998-2002)

00.02.1998 Dr. Hutchon's Correspondence in response to "Gestational age and induction of labour for prolonged pregnancy" (Gardosi J, Vanner T, Francis A. Gestational age and induction of labour for prolonged pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 792–797).

"If Boerhaave had had an ultrasound machine would he not have dealt with the problem differently? He might have ignored the menstrual data, and investigated the association of variables which predict fetal size in early pregnancy (e.g. biparietal diameter, crown‐rump length, or foot length) and the interval between the scan and the spontaneous onset of labour and delivery of a live healthy singleton baby. With both the dates known precisely, the only error is in the ultrasound measurement. Such data can provide a chart with a single regression line and no centile ranges. All the variability occurs around the interval to delivery. The chart could be converted into conventional ‘gestation’ and appear similar to an ordinary dating chart without the centile lines. While there may be little practical difference between using such a chart and an accepted ultrasound chart, it is likely to be more credible to the majority of obstetricians and midwives." (Source: Correspondence in response to "Gestational age and induction of labour for prolonged pregnancy" David J. R. Hutchon British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology February 1998 Volume 105, Issue 2 Pages 247-247. View/Download pdf here.)

00.03.1998 Dr. Hutchon's Correspondence in response to "Customised fetal growth assessment" (Leeson S, Aziz N. Customised fetal growth assessment. Er J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 648–651) was published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG).

"The authors (Vol 104, June 1997)1 recommend that menstrual dates be disregarded, which is contrary to the recommendation of CESDI 1, which requests a combination of menstrual and ultrasound data to date pregnancy. The authors quote the paper by Gierrson and Busby‐Earle to support the idea that certain dates are less reliable than ultrasound dates. This paper however never claimed to show a statistically significant difference between these two methods of measuring gestation 3.
(...)
A retrospective analysis (unpublished) at Darlington Memorial Hospital using a highly accurate computerised expert system to date pregnancy according to strict criteria suggested that a combination of scan and certain dates, taking into account the cycle length, was more accurate than scan dates alone." (Source: "Correspondence in response to "Customised fetal growth assessment" David J. R. Hutchon British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology March 1998, Vol. 105, pp. 369-371. View/Download pdf here.)

31.03.1998 Dr. Hutchon sent his letter dated 31 March 1998 with his manuscript: "Clinical interpretation of ultrasound biometry for dating and for assessment of fetal growth using a wheel and chart: is it sufficiently accurate?" to Stuart Campbell, Founding Editor-in-Chief of UOG. Dr. Hutchon's manuscript was recorded received 03 April 1998. Sarah Hatcher, Scientific Editor, used UOG manuscript code 98/072 to identify Dr. Hutchon's manuscript and confirm UOG's receipt of the revised version in her 13 July 1998 letter to Dr. Hutchon.

19.07.1998 Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 introducing his idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), was published as "Back to the Future" for Hermanni Boerhaave or a rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery" Hutchon DJR, ObGyn Ultrasound, ObGyn.net 1998: http://wwsw.obgyn.net/obgyn-ultrasound/back-future-hermanni-boerhaave-or-rational-way-generate-ultrasound-scan-charts-estimating-date. Note: The ObGyn.net URL has since been updated. For date authentication and provenance purposes, following is an Internet Archive WayBackMahine link to the 22 Feb 1999 archive of Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998, the first date for which it was archived. https://web-beta.archive.org/web/19990222085509/http://www.obgyn.net:80/us/cotm/9807/cotm_9807.htm Also, following is an Internet Archive WayBackMahine link to the 10 Oct 2004 archive of Dr. Hutchon's website, the first date for which it was archived: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20041010152259/hutchon.net It is important to note in the "Acknowledgements" section of Hutchon 1998, Dr. Hutchon stated, "I am grateful to the ultrasonographers and the midwives for entering the data."

Importantly, Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 included three separate warnings, the three excerpts included below.

"The chart is only for estimating the date of delivery."
"Just as Boerhaave was not actually measuring the length of pregnancy, and the word "gestation" is used to describe the measurement of time from the last menstrual period to reflect this, so also there is no pretence that this method is determining fetal age."
"The approach mimics, in modern terms, the method originally formulated by Boerhaave. By adopting this approach we do not need to concern ourselves about the length of the cycle nor the certainty of the dates. Provided the fetus can be assessed as normal using other criteria, this chart can be used to provide the best estimate of the date of delivery (EDD)." (Source: "'Back to the Future' for Hermanni Boerhaave' or 'A rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery'" Hutchon DJR, ObGyn Ultrasound, Obgyn.net 1998: http://www.obgyn.net/obgyn-ultrasound/back-future-hermanni-boerhaave-or-rational-way-generate-ultrasound-scan-charts-estimating-date [Note: URL updated from published original by ObGyn.net])

08.08.1998 Dr. Hutchon wrote a rapid response "Nuchal Test and Dating" for the article "Nuchal test detects 80% of Down's syndrome pregnancies" in the British Medical Journal in which he mentioned the Hutchon Method, with a citation and reference that included a link to his seminal Hutchon 1998: "Back to the Future" for Hermanni Boerhaave or a rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery." (Source: "Nuchal Test and Dating" David J R Hutchon, Consultant Obstetrician, Memorial Hospital, Darlington. British Medical Journal 1998; 317:368, Published 08 August 1998, doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7155.368b)

00.09.1998 Pekka Taipale, the lead author of Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001, started his employment as a postdoctoral researcher (September 1998 – June 2000) with Norway's NCFM Group at Trondheim University Hospital (St. Olavs Hospital). Pekka Taipale worked for Sturla H. Eik-Nes who headed Norway's NCFM Group. Sturla H. Eik-Nes and Per Grøttum supervised and contributed to Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2002, however, and uncharacteristically, Sturla H. Eik-Nes and Per Grøttum forewent authorship and contributorship credits along with all other acknowledgments.

00.02.1999 Dr. Hutchon's manuscript UOG 98/072: "Clinical interpretation of ultrasound biometry for dating and for assessment of fetal growth using a wheel and chart: is it sufficiently accurate?" was published in UOG. Included below is a relevant excerpt with respect to Lailas case.

"Despite the almost routine availability of ultrasound, the antenatal detection of fetuses that are small for gestational age has been disappointing and has not resulted in the substantial outcome benefit expecte d 1,2. Failure to assess fetal growth adequately was highlighted in the 4th Annual Report of the Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Death in Infancy (CESDI) 3. There are a number of reasons why this may be so. Some small babies may be constitutionally small but perfectly healthy, whereas others may be unable to meet their growth potential owing to hypoxia, which may result in permanent damage. Customized growth charts have been proposed to address this issue 4. The interpretation of ultrasound measurements for growth depends on several criteria: the rate of growth, the ratio of growth to various parameters of size and the absolute measures of size according to the gestation 5." (Source: "Clinical interpretation of ultrasound biometry for dating and for assessment of fetal growth using a wheel and chart: is it sufficiently accurate?" D. J. R. Hutchon and C. Kearney, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Memorial Hospital, Darlington, UK. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999;13:103–106. Received 3–4–98, Revised 15–6–98, Accepted 7–9–90 [sic], Published February 1999)

18-19.03.1999 Dr. Hutchon delivered presentations of his method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, at the British Maternal and Fetal Medicine Society (BMFMS) Fourth Annual Conference at University of York in England to generate customized ultrasound dating charts. Dr. Timothy Wheeler took a serious interest in Dr. Hutchon's poster presenting the Hutchon Method of PDEE and kindly offered to help connect Dr. Hutchon with a statistician of repute who might review and comment on it. (Source: Hutchon DJR. Customised ultrasound dating charts: British Maternal and Fetal Medicine Society fourth annual conference, University of York [abstract]. J Obstet Gynaecol 1999;19(1 Suppl l):557)

00.06.1999 Dr. Hutchon responded to an article by Jason Gardosi & Reynir T. Geirsson with a discussion that included his Population-based Direct EDD Estimation in: "Correspondence: Routine ultrasound is the method of choice for dating pregnancy" (Received 11 November 1998) David J. R. Hutchon, Memorial Hospital, Darlington. Br J Obstet Gynuecol 106, 610-616.)

13.07.1999 Dr. Hutchon's manuscript "Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery" was received by Ultrasound in Obstetrices & Gyneacology (UOG) and coded as: UOG 99/155. During the submission process, Dr. Hutchon informed UOG he had a similar paper published by OBGYN.net on the Internet: "'Back to the Future" for Hermanni Boerhaave' or 'a rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery'."

Dr. Stuart Campbell, Founding Editor-in-Chief Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gyneacology and President of ISUOG 1990-1998, published his original idea and method of estimating GA (then termed "maturity") using ultrasound-based fetal BPD measurements in July 1969 entitled "The prediction of fetal maturity by ultrasonic measurement of the biparietal diameter." Consequently, it seemed fitting Dr. David J. R. Hutchon presented his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), using ultrasound-based fetal BPD measurements in his manuscript entitled "Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery" to Dr. Stuart Campbell in July 1999, 30-years later. (Source: "The prediction of fetal maturity by ultrasonic measurement of the biparietal diameter" Campbell S. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 76: 603, 1969, First published: July 1969)

Interestingly, Tunón K, Eik-Nes SH and Grøttum P. coauthored a paper in 1996 titled "A comparison between ultrasound and a reliable last menstrual period as predictors of the day of delivery in 15 000 examinations" in which authors acknowledged Dr. Campbell, who was then President of ISUOG, for being the first to use BPD to predict day of delivery (excerpt below).
"The first reliable method for predicting gestational age based on ultrasonic measurement of the biparietal diameter was described in 1969 by Campbell. The reliability of this method in predicting the day of delivery has been demonstrated in several later studies 3,6,10-12." (Source: "A comparison between ultrasound and a reliable last menstrual period as predictors of the day of delivery in 15 000 examinations" Tunón K, Eik-Nes SH and Grøttum P. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 8: 178-185, p. 178. Received 30-1-96, Revised 20-6-96, Accepted 1-7-96)
However, in all 5 references cited above "3,6,10-12", day of delivery was not estimated, it was simply calculated from the LMP date established by the estimate of gestational age on the date of the ultrasound exam by using the equivalent of Naegele's rule. Predicting gestational age and predicting estimated date of delivery are not the same thing and should not be conflated in an attempt to induce confusion.
- Citation 3 (Campbel et al. 1985)
- Citation 6 (Persson & Kullander 1983)
- Citation 10 (Sabbagha & Hughey 1978)
- Citation 11 (Jeanty et al. 1984)
- Citation 12 (Moore et al. 1998)

Included below is a paraphrase of the excerpt above which acknowledged Campbell, only it has been updated with respect to Dr. Hutchon.
"The first reliable method for predicting estimated date of delivery based on ultrasonic measurement of the biparietal diameter was described in 1998 by Hutchon. The reliability of this method in predicting the day of delivery has been demonstrated in several later studies by Sturla H. Eik-Nes who appropriated, plagiarized, implemented and misused Hutchon's original idea and method of PDEE."
Dr. Campbell was the first to link fetal BPD to GA, and Dr. Hutchon was the first to link fetal BPD to EDD. Dr. Campbell was extensively acknowledged, cited and referenced for his original idea and method of GA estimation using BPD while Sturla H. Eik-Nes was extensively acknowledged, cited and referenced for Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of PDEE, which Sturla H. Eik-Nes had appropriated and plagiarized in NCFM eSnurra Group's Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001, Eik-Nes et al. 2005 and Gjessing et al. 2007 publications, the former published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the latter 2 published in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology while Dr. Campbell was Founding Editor-in-Chief. Moreover, Sturla H. Eik-Nes had been President of ISUOG 1998-2002, while Dr. Campbell was Founding Editor-in-Chief when Dr. Hutchon submitted his manuscript to UOG which had been coded "UOG 99/155 Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery"

Dr. Hutchon's manuscript was put on hold for 115 days before it was sent to 3 UOG referees for review on 05.11.1999 and then returned from referees' review on 01.02.2000, an inexplicably long 88 day review period. While Dr. Hutchon's manuscript was not accepted for publication, Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE was recognized for its novelty and utility among the individual referees, as demonstrated in these excerpts from the 3 UOG referees' reviews (below) . Also, included is an excerpt from a referee's review from Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology which also confirmed the novelty of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of PDEE.

"However, authors should encouraged to expand and revise this study as it is a novel approach to estimating the expected date of delivery." (Source: "UOG 99/155: Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery." Editors' Code: 28, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gyneacology)
"It is clear that any ultrasound measurement can be related to the subsequent date of delivery, and it is an interesting idea to try to turn such data to good use." (Source: "UOG 99/155: Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery." Editors' Code: 210, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gyneacology)
"This article describes an alternative methodology for the estimation of the expected date of delivery (EDD) from ultrasound parameters such as the biparietal diameter (BPD)." (Source: "UOG 99/155: Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery." Editors' Code: 504, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gyneacology)
"... to my knowledge, the claim for novelty is justified." (Source: Report: Manuscript no. OG01063 - Generation of ultrasound charts for the estimated date of delivery: Proposed new approach and methodology. Timothy Wheeler, Reader in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Southampton, 29.08.2001. Obstetrics and Gynaecology)

While Dr. Hutchon thought the referees may not have fully appreciated that his manuscript presented a demonstration of his original idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), he accepted UOG's decision not to publish his manuscript in UOG; a decision which required a still-unexplained 203 days from UOG's receipt of Dr. Hutchon's manuscript.

27.09.1999 Dr. Hutchon responded to the article: "Identifying problems with data collection at a local level: survey of NHS maternity units in England" (BMJ 1999;319:619). In his 27 September 1999 response titled "Ultrasound dating data," Dr. Hutchon presented the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation which included a link to his seminal Hutchon 1998.

25.01.2000 Dr. Hutchon received a letter from Stuart Campbell, Editor-in-Chief of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (UOG), also known as The White Journal "Re: Ms UOG/99 155 Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery" that informed Dr. Hutchon: "Please submit the revised version of your paper on disc (instructions enclosed) with a matching copy on paper."

01.25.2000 letter to Dr. Hutchon from Stuart Campbell
The Official Journal of the International Society
of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Editor-in-Chief: Professor Stuart Campbell
Technical Editor: Trish ChudJeigh

25th January 2000

Dr DJR Hutchon
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Memorial Hospital
Darlington
DL36HX

Dear Dr Hutchon,

Re: Ms UOG/99 155 Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for
estimating the date of delivery
I am sorry that there has been a delay in sending you the referee reports but
unfortunately one of our principle referees has still not responded.

I have however, decided to write this letter in response to two referees. If the
third referee writes in the meantime I will send his comments onto you.
Basically, both referees find that your paper is not suitable for publication in its
present form. One of the referees feels that in fact it could not be published
without a major rethink of your statistical methods.

Please submit the revised version of your paper on disc (instructions enclosed)
with a matching copy on paper.

With best wishes
Yours sincerely
Stuart Campbell
Editor-in-Chief

00.06.2000 Pekka Taipale, the lead author of Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001, concluded his employment as a postdoctoral researcher (September 1998 – June 2000) with Norway's NCFM Group at Trondheim University Hospital (St. Olavs Hospital). Pekka Taipale worked for Sturla H. Eik-Nes who headed Norway's NCFM Group.

30.10.2000 An Italian student, Giovanni Gallo, implemented an educational website: "Estimation of fetal well-being and accretion - decision support" with Dr. Hutchon's calculators. This Italian website explicitly referenced Dr. Hutchon and provided links to Dr. Hutchon's website and his Hutchon 1998.

00.02.2001 NCFM Snurra Group's Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001 titled "Predicting Delivery Date by Ultrasound and Last Menstrual Period in Early Gestation" was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology. Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001 is based, entirely, on Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE. Pekka Taipale, the lead author of Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001, was employed as a postdoctoral researcher (September 1998 – June 2000) with Norway's NCFM Group at Trondheim University Hospital (St. Olavs Hospital). Pekka Taipale worked for Sturla H. Eik-Nes who headed Norway's NCFM Group. Also, Sturla H. Eik-Nes and Per Grøttum supervised and contributed to Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001, however, and uncharacteristically, Sturla H. Eik-Nes and Per Grøttum forewent authorship and contributorship credits along with all other acknowledgments. Apparently, Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001 was modeled after NCFM Snurra Group's Tunón et al. 2000, titled "Gestational age in pregnancies conceived after in vitro fertilization: a comparison between age assessed from oocyte retrieval, crown-rump length and biparietal diameter", the original version of which is included as Tunen et al. Paper V within Katarina Tunon's 1999 NTNU PhD Thesis; a thesis supervised by NCFM Snurra Group members Sturla H. Eik-Nes and Per Grøttum. (Source: "Predicting Delivery Date by Ultrasound and Last Menstrual Period in Early Gestation" TAIPALE, PEKKA MD, PhD; HIILESMAA, VILHO MD, PhD. Obstetrics & Gynecology: February 2001 - Volume 97 - Issue 2 - p 189–194. Received May 30, 2000. Received in revised form September 25, 2000. Accepted October 12, 2000.) (Source: "Gestational age in pregnancies conceived after in vitrofertilization: a comparison between age assessed from oocyte retrieval, crown-rump length and biparietal diameter" K. TUNON, S.H. EIK-NES, P. GRØTTUM, V. VON DURING and J.A. KAHN. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 41–46. Received 17-11-98, Revised 20-7-99, Accepted 23-8-99, Published January 2000)

30.04.2002 The International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) issued their wrist-slaps statement in response to the plagiarism of Drs. Asim Kurjak and Sanja Kupesic case (excerpt below). This ISUOG statement was issued as a private, internal statement, as it had been decided that it should not be made public. Note: Harm-Gerd Blaas and Sturla H. Eik-Nes were author and coauthor victims of this plagiarism, respectively. Moreover, Sturla H. Eik-Nes was President of ISUOG (1998-2002) at the time.

"ISUOG" Statement Complaint of Scientific Misconduct by Harm-Gerd Blaas against Asim Kurjak and Sanja Kupesic's ‘Ultrasound of first trimester CNS development: structure and circulation' – Chapter in ‘Fetal and Neonatal Neurology and Neurosurgery', 3rd edition, 2001 (Churchill Livingston):

"In full consideration of the complaint, relevant publications and the response from Drs Asim Kurjak and Sanja Kupesic, the ISUOG Board has concluded that the publication of this chapter constitutes plagiarism of the previously published original work of the complainant and that the complaint is justified. It is therefore the decision of the Board to accept the resignation of Drs Kurjak and Kupesic as members of ISUOG, and their withdrawal from ISUOG's forthcoming World Congress. Drs Kurjak and Kupesic will be ineligible for membership of the Society and associated benefits for a further three years.' London, April 30, 2002." (Source: "Report: Scientific misconduct v / Harm-Gerd Blaas" Nasjonalt Senter for Fostermedisin, St Olavs Hospital, Universitetssykehus i Trondheim, Norsk gynekologisk forening, Gynekologen nr. 4/2002, 21. desember 2002)

April 2003 The New Zealand College of Midwives published the article "Menstrual, clinical, ultrasonographic" which discussed the Hutchon Method of PDEE and cited Dr. Hutchon (excerpt below). Unfortunately, the article mistakenly identified Dr. Hutchon's work as having taken place in "Darlington, USA" instead of Darlington, UK. Interestingly, this article was the first result returned via a Google Search of the phrase "virtual LMP" (with quotation marks) in the context of pregnancy.

"There is now a computer software program being used in some maternity units, e.g. Darlington, USA, [sic] whereby head circumference, biparietal diameter, abdominal circumference and femur length are used to predict a customised due date without reference to LMP (Hutcheon, 1999 [sic]). Everywhere else where ultrasound dating happens, these measurements are matched to a gestational age, the ‘virtual’ LMP calculated and then Naegele’s 164 year old rule applied to supply the woman with an EDD (ibid; Weiner & Baschat, 1999)." (Source: New Zealand College of Midwives, Journal 28, April 2003, p. 9)

[PDF] journal - New Zealand College of Midwives https://www.midwife.org.nz/pdf/.../Screen%20res%20April%20Journal%202003.pdf by HWK Ora - ‎2003 - ‎Related articles "Everywhere else where ultrasound dating happens, these measurements are matched to a gestational age, the 'virtual' LMP calculated and then Naegele's."

Interestingly, there were only 6 results returned (below) via a Google Search of the phrase "virtual last menstrual period" (with quotation marks); with the first 5 results sourced directly to Dr. Hutchon's 1999 Letter to the Editor of BJOG regarding Gardosi & Geirsson 1998, "Routine ultrasound is the method of choice for dating pregnancy" or Dr. Hutchon's 2001 Letter to the Editor of BJOG regarding Baskett & Nagele 2000, "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal." No prior references to either "virtual last menstrual period" or "virtual LMP" were discovered. [Note: the 5th result is also a Letter to the Editor that appeared in the same pdf document as Dr. Hutchon's Letter to the Editor; however, the 6th result is both unrelated, dubious and does not belong, yet it is there.]

June 2003 Dr. Hutchon had a letter published in the June 2003 issue of American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology (AJOG) that described his method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, including a discussion of its features and benefits along with a citation and reference to his seminal Hutchon 1998 with a URL link.

Letter
"We have argued for a number of years that the current method for generating ultrasound dating charts is flawed for several reasons. First, the method relies on a selected group of women who do not reflect the general population. Second, it does not provide an estimated date of delivery, which has to be produced by applying Naegele’s rule. It would be very much better to use the mean interval from scan of a specific size to delivery as the basis for providing an EDC. 4 Generating charts in this way allows the data from the majority of pregnancies to be used and provides an EDC, without the use of any other data such as Naegele’s rule. With the large numbers available, obtained from routinely collected data in any maternity unit, analysis is possible to determine subtle differences in the scan EDC. There may be important differences according to fetal sex, parity, ponderal index, and ethnic origin. The charts can be generated locally and applied to the local population with confidence."

David J. R. Hutchon, MD
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Darlington Memorial Hospital,
Hollyhurst Road, Darlington, DL3 6HX, United Kingdom
Key Reference:
4. Hutchon DJR. “Back to the future” for Hermaani Boerhaave, or, a rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery. 1998. Available from: http://xxxx.obgyn .net/us/cotm/9807/cotm 9807.btm [Out-of-Service URL] Accessed July 1998. [Updated URL: http://www.obgyn.net/obgyn-ultrasound/rational-way-generate-ultrasound-scan-charts-estimating-date-delivery] (Source: Letters: Fetal gender affects ultrasound gestation at term American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Volume 188, Number 6, p1381-1666, p. 1665, doi:10.1067/mob.2003.432)

08.05.2005 At the 01.09.2005 "Annual Meeting 2005, Norwegian Gynecological Society" (Årsmøtet 2005, Norsk gynekologisk forening), S Eik-Nes, HG Blaas, HK Gjessing and P Grøttum presented a lecture and abstract titled "Validation of indirect and direct methods for predicting term by means of ultrasound measurements" (Validering av indirekte og direkte metoder for å predikere term ved hjelp av ultralydmålinger). As of 08.05.2005, NGF's Annual Meeting's agenda along with NCFM Snurra Group's abstract were published and available on the NGF website. NCFM Snurra Group's abstract stated: "A new direct method (eSnurra) based on ultrasound measurements of BPD during routine examination and calculation of median remaining pregnancy length has been tested against two traditional indirect methods." However, the "new direct method (eSnurra)" was not "new" because it was, and remains, an implementation of the appropriated and plagiarized Hutchon Method of PDEE, Hutchon 1998, published 19.07.1998, 2,485 days, or almost 7 years, earlier.

08.09.2005 An oral poster presented by NCFM eSnurra Group at ISUOG's 15th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, was subsequently published 08.09.2005 by UOG, the first known, published instance of NCFM eSnurra Group appropriating Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), thus initiating NCFM eSnurra Group's 12-years of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism. Given the significance of the publication of this oral poster, it is included below in its entirety. Note the use of the words "a new approach" in the title given the fact that Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 and website had been published 7-years earlier.

OC20.01: Predicting remaining time of pregnancy—a new approach to the prediction of day of delivery
S. H. Eik-Nes1, H. G. Blaas1, P. Grøttum2, H. Gjessing3
Volume 26, Issue 4, September 2005, Page 341.
1National Center for Fetal Medicine, Trondheim, Norway, 2University of Oslo, Norway, 3Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
Traditionally, estimation of day of delivery (EDD) has been done by regression analysis between gestational age and ultrasound measurement in a selected material of pregnant women with regular cycles and reliable LMP. EDD has been done by adding the typical length of gestation i.e. 280–282 days to the estimated day of the LMP. However, EDD may also be done by directly assessing the relation between the ultrasound measurements and the remaining time of pregnancy which has many advantages. Our material included 46 714 pregnancies during the time between 1987–2004. After the exclusion of abortions, multiple pregnancies, anomalies and inductions for reasons other than overdue pregnancies, 39 505 ultrasound measurements were available from 38 247 pregnancies in the range between BPD 25–60 mm. The relation between the remaining time of pregnancy and the BPD was established by non-parametric quantile regression. The residual analysis shows that over the full range of inclusion there is an optimal relation between the true and the predicted remaining time of pregnancy, assessed by the median of the distribution of the births. On average 87% of the births took place between ± 14 days of the predicted day, between 4 to 5% went beyond EDD + 14 days. The direct method is independent of the LMP and may be developed by observations of pregnant women in general and not only those with a reliable LMP. In contrast to the traditional indirect methods this direct method allows for the prediction of a birth interval around the EDD. This is of importance for the women in electing the day for their pregnancy leave. Additionally it is easy to correct for fetal and maternal co-factors known to have an impact on the EDD, such as the femur length, sex, twins, maternal age and parity as well as maternal smoking. Research involving other factors that potentially are having an influence of the time of birth for an individual pregnancy may be conducted using this method. (Source: "OC20.01: Predicting remaining time of pregnancy—a new approach to the prediction of day of delivery" S. H. Eik-Nes 1, H.G.Blaas 1, P. Grøttum 2, H.Gjessing 3; 1 National Center for Fetal Medicine, Trondheim, Norway, 2 University of Oslo, Norway, 3 Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. Special Issue:15th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 26, Issue 4, September 2005. Page 341. First Published: 8 September 2005. DOI:10.1002/uog.2113)

24.04.2006 A Letter to the Editor written by NCFM eSnurra Group members Sturla H. Eik-Nes, Per Grøttum & Håkon Gjessing was accepted for publication in Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica in which they promoted NCFM eSnurra Group's "recently...developed" method of direct EDD estimation/prediction (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized, misused Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE)).

"The traditional polynomial regressions used in ‘‘Snurra’’ and ‘‘Terminhjulet’’ are becoming obsolete in constructing models in obstetrics. New methods using the large population-based data now available must form the future tools to predict gestational age and expected day of delivery. Such methods have recently been developed (10)." (Source: LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Regarding ‘‘Term prediction with ultrasound: evaluation of a new dating curve for biparietal diameter’’ STURLA H. EIK-NES, PER GRØTTUM, HÅKON GJESSING. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica Volume 85, Issue 10, October 2006, Pages 1276–1278 First published: October 2006 DOI: 10.1080/00016340600839668.) Note: Cited Reference from excerpt above: 10. Eik-Nes SH, Blaas HG, Grøttum P, Gjessing H. Predicting remaining time of pregnancy: a new approach to the prediction of day of delivery. 15th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Book of Abstracts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:341." (Source: ibid.)

16.11.2006 Sturla H. Eik-Nes, Harm-Gerd K. Blaas and Kjell Å. Salvesen of NCFM eSnurra Group wrote an article published in Tidsskr Nor Legeforen "Pillory for scientific fraud - will it help?" ("Gapestokk etter forskningsfusk – vil det hjelpe?"). Included below are relevant excerpts which apply to NCFM eSnurra Group's plagiarism of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE. It is interesting to note Eik-Nes and Blaas were 2 of the 4 authors who plagiarized the Hutchon Method of PDEE in NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 (S. H. Eik-Nes, H. G. Blaas, P. Grøttum, H. Gjessing).

"When the people who have cheated are not subjected to sanctions, it is unlikely that the problem will disappear."
("Når personene som har fusket ikke utsettes for sanksjoner, er det lite trolig at problemet vil forsvinne.") (Source:"Pillory for scientific fraud - will it help?" ("Gapestokk etter forskningsfusk – vil det hjelpe?" Harm-Gerd K. Blaas, Kjell Å. Salvesen, Sturla H. Eik-Nes. 16 November 2006 Tidsskr Nor Legeforen 2006 126: 2982-3 The manuscript was received 2.10. 2006 and approved 10.10. 2006. Medical Editor Jan C. Frich.)
"Scientific misconduct can be compared to disease. There are three types of scientific fraud: fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. As in our everyday medical life with various diseases, we find different varieties of cheating. The transition from fresh (acceptable citation) to seriously ill (blatant plagiarism) is sliding, and it can be difficult to draw the line between these two extremes ( 11 )."
("Vitenskapelig uredelighet kan sammenliknes med sykdom. Det finnes tre typer av vitenskapelig fusk: fabrikasjon, falsifikasjon og plagiering. Som i vår medisinske hverdag med ulike sykdommer, finner vi forskjellige varianter av fusk. Overgangen fra frisk (akseptabel sitering) til alvorlig syk (åpenbar plagiering) er glidende, og det kan være vanskelig å trekke grensen mellom disse ytterpunktene ( 11 ).") (Source: ibid.)
"Scientific misconduct can occur everywhere." ("Vitenskapelig uredelighet kan forekomme overalt.") (Source: ibid.)
"Plagiarism of Blaas' research triggered a condemnation of Kurjak and Kupesic from the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2002, but the reaction of the association was not disclosed. In retrospect, we believe this was unfortunate."
("Plagieringen av forskningen til Blaas utløste en fordømmelse av Kurjak og Kupesic fra International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology i 2002, men reaksjonen til foreningen ble ikke offentliggjort.") (Source: ibid.)
"We agree with Magne Nylenna's assessment that it can be detrimental to exempt co-authors of fraudulent scientific papers completely from liability ( 17 )."
("Vi er enig i Magne Nylennas vurdering av at det kan være uheldig å frita medforfattere av uredelige vitenskapelige artikler helt for ansvar ( 17 ).") (Source: ibid.)
"By writing relatively similar literary reviews in different books or journals, you can build up a collection of articles that give the impression that you are a top specialist in a particular field of study. This can be done without having performed any kind of basic research documented in original articles. This is a variation of intelligent plagiarism (20) that can be considered a dangerous form of scientific dishonesty." ("Ved å skrive relativt like litteraturgjennomganger i forskjellige bøker eller tidsskrifter, kan man bygge opp en samling av artikler som gir inntrykk av at man er toppspesialist på et bestemt fagområde. Dette kan gjøres uten at man selv har utført noen form for grunnleggende forskning som er dokumentert i originalartikler. Dette er en variant av intelligent plagiering (20) som kan anses som en farlig form for vitenskapelig uredelighet.") (Source: ibid.)
Note: The description of "intelligent plagiarism" described in the excerpt above does not exist in the cited article, citation 20: "Intelligent plagiarists are the most dangerous". The actual description of "intelligent plagiarism" in the cited/reference article is included below. And, interestingly, the very precisely describes the "intelligent plagiarism" engaged by Sturla H. Eik-Nes et al. with respect to their appropriation and plagiarism Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of PDEE.
- "What is worse, in my opinion, but was not discussed in these Nature articles, are cases where scientists rewrite previous findings in different words, purposely hiding the sources of their ideas, and then during subsequent years forcefully claim that they have discovered new phenomena. Such 'intelligent plagiarism' is, unfortunately, often more successful because most scientists do not have either time or sufficient interest to carefully investigate where the original results came from."
  
  As such misconduct seems to me to have recently increased within the scientific community, I think that a thorough discussion of these issues, in Nature or elsewhere, is urgently needed." (Source: "Intelligent plagiarists are the most dangerous" Lennart Stenflo, Department of Physics, Umea University, SE-90187 Umea, Sweden. Nature 427, 777. 26 February 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/427777a. pdf here)

01.12.2006 Sturla H. Eik-Nes wrote a response to Iain Chalmers' article "Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak" in the "Analysis And Comment, Professional regulation" section of BMJ: 01.12.2006 Response by Sturla H. Eik-Nes: "The case of Asim Kurjak - ISUOG Statement of 2002" In his response, Sturla H. Eik-Nes stated:

"I am writing this letter as President of International Society of Ultrasound of [sic] Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) during the period of 1998 – 2002."

Sections of Dr. Blaas' PhD thesis were plagiarized by Prof. Kurjak and Dr. Kupesic along with large text segments from 2 of Dr. Blass' papers: Blaas & Eik-Nes, 1996 and Blass et al.,1998, of which Dr. Eik-Nes was a coauthor. Eik-Nes discussed the correspondence involved in notifying relevant parties and institutions of the plagiarism and the differing opinions, allegiances and loyalties regarding the extent and seriousness of the plagiarism and implications for the reputations and careers of the plagiarists. Sturla H. Eik-Nes summarized the 2002 ISUOG's 2002 investigation, decisions and actions (included below).

"The information was presented to the ISUOG Executive Committee during a conference call on February 25, 2002, and in an e-mail to the complete ISUOG Board on March 22, 2002. It was concluded that this was a clear case of plagiarism and, after further e-mail communication, the Board decided to suspend Prof. Kurjak and Dr. Kupesic from all their ISUOG functions and from the Editorial Board of the journal “Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology”, and to exclude them from ISUOG membership for 3 years (Karel Maršál, personal communication)." (Source:
"ISUOG Statement re complaint of Scientific Misconduct by Harm-Gerd Blaas against Asim Kurjak and Sanja Kupesic ‘Ultrasound of first trimester CNS development: structure and circulation’ – Chapter in ‘Fetal and Neonatal Neurology and Neurosurgery’, 3rd edition, 2001 (Churchill Livingston):
- "‘In full consideration of the complaint, relevant publications and the response from Drs Kurjak and Kupesic, the ISUOG Board has concluded that the publication of this chapter constitutes plagiarism of the previously published original work of the complainant and that the complaint is justified. It is therefore the decision of the Board to accept the resignation of Drs Kurjak and Kupesic as members of ISUOG, and their withdrawal from ISUOG’s forthcoming World Congress. Drs Kurjak and Kupesic will be ineligible for membership of the Society and associated benefits for a further three years'." (Source : Analysis And Comment, Professional regulation, Response: "Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak" BMJ 2006;333:594 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38968.611296.F7 (Published 14 September 2006). Response: "The case of Asim Kurjak - ISUOG Statement of 2002" Sturla H. Eik-Nes (Published 01 December 2006), Sturla H. Eik-Nes, Professor, National Center for Fetal Medicine, St. Olavs University Hospital, 7006-Trondheim, Norway.)

Drs. Blaas and Eik-Nes were likely to have been well compensated financially, and rightly so, by the publisher for assuming authorship of the chapter of the book that had been plagiarized, thus enabling the publisher to get the book to press, to market and to profitability. Moreover, Drs. Blaas and Eik-Nes were compensated with the associated professional recognition, reputation and career benefits associated with authorship credits of book chapters, and rightly so. Also, the plagiarism was identified, the plagiarists had their wrists slapped with the loss of their ISUOG memberships & benefits privileges for 3-years, and their reputations and careers were not subjected to the reactions of an informed public of medical community, as it was all kept silent. However, there is one party that was neither mentioned in Dr. Eik-Nes' response nor it the quoted ISUOG 2002 decision; one party that ISUOG's calculated decision to remain collectively and completely silent regarding 25-years of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism and data falsification with respect to fetal medicine; one party who depends on academic medical journals to police, with prejudice, research misconduct, academic misconduct and scientific fraud. ISUOG's failure to make their wrist-slapping decision public utterly and completely failed the public trust. Moreover, the informed reactions of the public as a cost for plagiarizing a chapter published in a medical reference book for use by untold numbers of physicians for medical knowledge and information in their medical thinking, medial decision-making and medical actions regarding fetal central nervous system development would serve as more of a deterrent than loss of ISUOG club membership privileges for 3-years. Sir Iain Chalmers made this point quite nicely in his concluding "Summary points."

Summary points

Journals and institutions should take allegations of plagiarism more seriously
Journals should use systematic reviews for editorial peer review, as well as considering using software designed to detect plagiarism
To reduce the numbers of new as well as recurrent plagiarists, journals, institutions, and professional associations need to expose very publicly those found guilty of plagiarism (Source: Analysis And Comment, Professional regulation, "Role of systematic reviews in detecting plagiarism: case of Asim Kurjak" Iain Chalmers. BMJ 2006;333:594 (Published 14 September 2006) doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38968.611296.F7. View/download PDF here.)

01.06.2007 NCFM eSnurra Group members Gjessing and Grøttum wrote a Letter to the Editor which was published in Journal of Perinatal Medicine "Letters to the editor" regarding the accuracy of BPD and HC as predictors of EDD. However, it is interesting to note that NCFM eSnurra Group's published Gjessing & Grøttum 2007 Letter to the Editor twice-cited NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 which appropriated and plagiarized the Hutchon Method of PDEE 7-days before NCFM eSnurra Group's plagiarism-based Gjessing et al. 2007 had been published. Consequently, the plagiarists Gjessing and Grøttum, via their poster published by UOG as Eik-Nes, Blaas, Grøttum & Gjessing 2005, had plagiarized again by citing a yet-to-be-published plagiarism-based paper authored by NCFM eSnurra Group plagiarists which included themselves. Included below is the citation to the then unpublished Gjessing et al. 2007 which appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of PDEE.

"[2] Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eik-Nes SH. A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population based approach. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007 (in press)." (Source: "Accuracy of second trimester fetal head circumference and biparietal diameter for predicting the time of spontaneous birth" Håkkon K. Gjessing, and Per Grøttum.J. Perinat. Med. 35 (2007) 350–351. DOI 10.1515/JPM.2007.080. Received February 14, 2007, Accepted May 10, 2007, Published online on June 1, 2007)

08.06.2007 NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 was published: A direct method for ultrasound Prediction of day of delivery: a new, population-based approach, H. K. Gjessing, P. Grøttum, S. H. Eik-Nes, Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2007; 30: 19–27. Manuscript Accepted: 16 April 2007; Version of record online: 8 June 2007; Issue online: 22 June 2007. However, NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007, appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, from Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998, his other publications and his website. NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 claimed Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method as their own original idea and method, thereby engaging in what is now 13-years of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism.

Also, NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 cited Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001, a collaboration with NCFM Snurra Group (excerpt below). The Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001 collaboration appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation while, ironically (or strategically), when Taipale was employed by NCFM and worked with NCFM Snurra Group at the time Sturla H. Eik-Nes was President of ISUOG (1998-2002). (see Plagiarism > HUTCHON TIMELINE 00.02.2001)

"Population prediction of remaining time has been used previously only to assess prediction quality 22. Our approach extends to constructing a full set of prediction models. Thus, it represents both a new and a complete approach to pregnancy dating using ultrasound examination." [Note: Citation "22" referenced: "22. Taipale P, Hiilesmaa V. Predicting delivery date by ultrasound and last menstrual period in early gestation. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97: 189–194."] (Source: " A direct method for ultrasound Prediction of day of delivery: a new, population-based approach" H. K. Gjessing, P. Grøttum, S. H. Eik-Nes. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2007; 30: 19–27, p. 23. Manuscript Accepted:16 April 2007; Version of record online: 8 June 2007; Issue online: 22 June 2007)

Consequently, one cannot ignore the obvious question: Were Pekka Taipale and Vilho Hiilesmaa set up and used as unwitting fall guys to somehow screen NCFM eSnurra Group's appropriation and plagiarism of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE? NCFM Snurra Group had collaborate on Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001, without taking authorship credits. while Sturla H. Eik-Nes was President of ISUOG. More specifically, Pekka Taipale worked for NTNU/NCFM under Sturla H. Eik-Nes in Trondheim. Whatever the intent and/or strategy, it remains a well-documented, fact Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon method of PDEE, had been published in Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998, 19.07.1998 by OBGYN.net, 7 years and 9-years before NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 and Gjessing et al. 2007 , respectively, were published by UOG and, 2.5 years before NCFM Snurra Group's Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001 collaboration was published by UOG. However, and interestingly, Dr. Hutchon's manuscripts of his idea and method of PDEE was submitted to UOG in 1999 while Sturla H. Eik-Nes was President of ISUOG (1998 - 2002).

26.07.2007: Dr. Hutchon sent a letter to The Editor, then Dr. Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (UOG), also known as The White Journal, to seek a by-the-book investigation and redress for the appropriation of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, from Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998, copyrighted website and his other publications, in NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 paper published 08.06.2007 by UOG. [Note: at the time, Dr. Hutchon was not aware of NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005.] NCFM eSnurra Group claimed Dr. Hurchon's original idea and method as their own original idea and method in their Gjessing et al. 2007 paper, without attribution to Dr. Hutchon or the Hutchon Method of PDEE. However, Dr. Yves Ville never replied to Dr. Hutchon. It is interesting to note Dr. Yves Ville was Editor-in-Chief of UOG (2006-2010) and served as President of ISUOG (2012-2014).

Dr. Hutchon's First Letter to: The Editor (Dr. Yves Ville), Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

26 July 2007

The Editor
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynaecology
c/o Parthenon Publishing
25 Blades Court
Deodar Road
London
SW152NU

Dear Sir

Re: A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of deliver: a new, population-based approach
H. K. GJESSING,P. GROTTUMand S. H. ElK-NESS
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 19-27

It was with some interest and then dismay that I read this article in your journal. Interest because of my previous work and publication and dismay that there was no acknowledgement of any previous proposal or work on this direct method. This is described in my paper, "Back to the Future" for Hermaani Boerhaave or, "a rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery", on the Ultrasound Section of obgyn.net in July 1998. A summarised version has also been on my index page www.hutchon.net for the past 8 years. I submitted demonstration papers to your journal in 1998 and this was finally rejected in 2000. I also submitted the paper to Human Reproduction and the British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, without success but obviously this was sent out to numerous referees. Although my paper was based on a much smaller population it effectively demonstrated the method and similar advantages to those now described by Gjessing et al were explained. A poster describing the methodology was presented at the 2002 British Maternal & Fetal Medicine Society meeting in York and the abstract published in the Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology.

The statistical methodology and exclusions from the dataset used in this paper are not identical to my proposal but one could argue the correctness of either approach.

I find it difficult to believe that none of my publications or letters were seen by the authors. Accepting however that this is the case, I feel I am entitled to an acknowledgment that their proposal is not original, having been proposed by myself ten years ago.

Yours sincerely

Mr D J R Hutchon
Senior Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist

Copies to:
Professor Stewart Campbell
Founding Editor

Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynaecology
c/o Parthenon Publishing
London
SW152NU

Professor Phillip Steer
Editor of BJOG
Royal Cotleqe of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

The Editor
Human Reproduction

Professor Jim G Thornton
Former Editor of Human Reproduction
Nottingham City Hospital
Hucknall Road
Nottingham
NG51PB

Mr Steve Sturges
Consultant Obstetrician
Fetal Medicine Department
RVI

Professor Douglas Altman
Director of Centre for Statistics in Medicine
University of Oxford

BMA Ethics Committee
BMA House
Tavistock Square
London

Professor Terry J DuBose
Chair Editorial Advisory Board
Ultrasound Section of OBGYN ','
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
4301 West Markham, Little Rock
Arkansas, USA

Dr H K Gjessing
Division of Epidemiology
Norwegian Institute of Public Health
PO Box 4404
Nydalen
N-0403
Oslo
Norway
(Source: Dr. David J. R. Hutchon, personal correspondence)

26.07.2007: Dr. Hutchon sent a register letter copy of his 26.07.2007 letter (above) to 9 additional recipients including Dr. H K Gjessing, an original member of NCFM eSnurra Group, to present his evidence-based concerns about the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation having been appropriated from his seminal Hutchon 1998 and copyrighted website by the NCFM eSnurra Group in their 2007 paper published 22 June 2007 without any attribution to Dr. Hutchon or the Hutchon Method of PDEE. Dr. H K Gjessing was listed as the primary author and corresponding author of NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 paper, but he never replied to, nor contacted, Dr. Hutchon, ever.

17.09.2007: Dr. Hutchon sent a followup registered letter dated 17.09.2007 to his original letter dated 26.07.2007 to The Editor, then Dr. Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief, of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (UOG), also known as The White Journal (excerpt below) regarding his serious, evidence-based concerns about the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation having been appropriated from his Hutchon 1998 and copyrighted website by the NCFM eSnurra Group and claimed as their original idea and method in their Gjessing et al. 2007 paper published 22 June 2007 without any attribution to Dr. Hutchon or the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation. However, and again, Dr. Yves Ville neither replied to, nor contacted, Dr. Hutchon, ever.

Dr. Hutchon's Second Letter to: The Editor (Dr. Yves Ville), Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

17/9/07

The Editor,
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynaecology,
Parthenon Publishing,
25 Blades Court,
Deodar Road,
London.
SW15 2NU

Dear Sir,

I refer to my letter of 26/7/2007 and enclose a copy. I appreciate that it takes time to consider and look into a matter like this however I would be grateful for confirmation that you have received the letter and an indication of when you might be able to respond.

Yours sincerely,
Mr D J R Hutchon Senior Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist
(Source: Dr. David J. R. Hutchon, personal correspondence)

Upon receipt of Dr. Hutchon's first letter, Dr. Ives Ville should have followed the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations regarding scientific misconduct (i.e., data fabrication, data falsification and plagiarism). However, Dr. Ville chose to ignore Dr. Hutchon's letters and do nothing because Dr. Ville, too, was engaged in plagiarizing Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE.

"When scientific misconduct is alleged, or concerns are otherwise raised about the conduct or integrity of work described in submitted or published papers, the editor should initiate appropriate procedures detailed by such committees such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts) and may choose to publish an expression of concern pending the outcomes of those procedures." (Source: "Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals" Section III. Publishing and Editorial Issues Related to Publication in Medical Journals B Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction p. 8. Updated December 2016. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE, www.icmje.org))

21.09.2007 (4 posters) Four oral poster abstracts (excerpts below) were published in the 21.09.2007 "Special Issue: 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology October 2007", all of which related to studies that appropriated and plagiarized the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, without attribution to Dr. Hutchon. Interestingly, the names Y. Ville (Editor-in-Chief of UOG) and H. K. Gjessing (NCFM eSnurra Group) are among the credited authors of the 4 oral posters, all presenting work based on the Hutchon Method of PDEE 10-years after publication of Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 and website where all the software code and data were made available. Moreover, the NCFM eSnurra Group claimed to have introduced "A new population-based term prediction method." It is a well-documented fact NCFM eSnurra Group had not introduced something new. Moreover, Dr. Hutchon's Hutchon 1998 and his copyrighted website were, and remain, easy to find via Google Search between 1998 and 2007, precisely as Dr. Hutchon had intended. Again, it was Yves. Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG, and H. K. Gjessing, lead and corresponding author of NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 paper, to whom Dr. Hutchon had sent his original registered letter of 26.07.2007 seeking a by-the-book investigation and redress for the appropriation the Hutchon Method of PDEE. Moreover, it was Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG, to whom Dr. Hutchon sent his followup registered letter of 17.09.2017. Both Gjessing and Ville had ignored Dr. Hutchon's efforts to seek an investigation and redress for the appropriation of the Hutchon Method of PDEE while both Gjessing and Ville were actively using the Hutchon Method of PDEE in their ongoing research; research they presented in the oral posters published, unbeknownst to Dr. Hutchon, in the 21.09.2007 "Special Issue: 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology October 2007" below.
.

OC01: A new population-based term prediction method—evaluation of the FL-based predictions
Objectives
Term prediction has traditionally been done with indirect methods based on small numbers of observations, implying that gestational age and a date for the last menstrual period (LMP) are estimated mainly on the basis of the biparietal diameter (BPD) measurement. Measuring femur length (FL) as well appears to give valuable additional information, and FL-based term prediction is a reasonable alternative in situations where an optimal BPD measurement is unachievable. A new direct prediction method, eSnurra, is a population-based model developed at NCFM, including about 40 000 ultrasound examinations. eSnurra calculates median remaining time of pregnancy and is independent of LMP. Given equal measurement practice, the method should be applicable to other populations nationwide.
Conclusions
Our study confirms the strength of a newly developed population-based prediction model, and that it performs well on a different population. We found the FL predictions to have nearly the same quality as the BPD predictions.
(Source: "OC01: A new population-based term prediction method—evaluation of the FL-based predictions" I. Økland, H. K. Gjessing, P. Grøttum, T. M. Eggebø, S. H. Eik-Nes. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Volume 30, Issue 4, October 2007 Page 367. First published: 21 September 2007 DOI: 10.1002/uog.4107)
OP08.01: Predicting remaining time of pregnancy—a new population-based approach for the prediction of day of delivery based on Femur length
Objectives
Estimation of the day of delivery (EDD) has mostly been made by measurement of BPD. Femur length (FL) was introduced to predict day of delivery 20 years ago, but did not replace BPD. Traditionally, estimation of EDD has been made by regression analysis between gestational age and ultrasound measurement in a selected group of pregnant women with regular cycles and reliable LMP. EDD is calculated by adding the typical length of gestation, i.e. 280–282 days, to the estimated date of the LMP. EDD may also be made by directly assessing the relationship between ultrasound measurements and the remaining time of pregnancy, which has many advantages. This study assesses the predictive capacity of FL and BPD when a newly developed direct population-based method, eSnurra, is used.
Conclusions
Our results shows that FL has the same predictive capacity as BPD at the same gestational age. We still believe that BPD ought to be the prime parameter for predicting term, but FL may be used in cases of abnormal cephalic shapes and to quality-assess the BPD-values.
(Source: "OP08.01: Predicting remaining time of pregnancy—a new population-based approach for the prediction of day of delivery based on Femur length" S. H. Eik-Nes, H. G. K. Blaas, P. Grottom, H. K. Gjessing. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Volume 30, Issue 4, October 2007, Page 478. First published: 21 September 2007 DOI: 10.1002/uog.4467)
OP08.02 A new population-based term prediction method – evaluationof the BPD-based predictions
Objectives
Term prediction has traditionally been done with indirect methods based on small numbers of observations. Gestational age and a date for the last menstrual period (LMP) are estimated; subsequently term is predicted by adding an assumed pregnancy length of 280–282 days. A new direct method, eSnurra, is a population-based model developed at NCFM, including ca. 40 000 ultrasound measurements of biparietal diameter (BPD). eSnurra calculates median remaining time of pregnancy and is independent of LMP. Given identical measurement practice, the method should be applicable to other populations nationwide.
Conclusions
This new approach to term prediction, calculating the median remaining time of pregnancy, seems to reduce the impact of factors known to cause bias in term predictions, i.e. the selection bias of old methods is avoided. Our study confirms that the newly developed population-based model performs well on a different population.
(Source: "OP08.02: A new population-based term prediction method—evaluation of the BPD-based predictions" I. Økland, H. K. Gjessing, P. Grøttum, T. M. Eggebø, S. H. Eik-Nes. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Volume 30, Issue 4, October 2007, Pages 478–479. First published: 21 September 2007, DOI: 10.1002/uog.4468)
OP07.07: Predictions of the median interval in days between first trimester ultrasound examination and delivery
Objectives
Determination of the expected day of conception is difficult and controversial. However, assessment of the remaining days of pregnancy would be valuable information for growth monitoring and management at term. We aimed to develop a prediction model of the remaining days of pregnancy based on first-trimester measurements.
Conclusions
We have developed a simple method for predicting accurately the date of delivery based on first-trimester measurements. It allows simple monitoring of growth and term in pregnancies. It also avoids controversies between doctors and patients about the exact date of conception.
(Source: "OP07.07: Predictions of the median interval in days between first trimester ultrasound examination and delivery" L. J. Salomon, C. Pizzi, A. Gasparrini, J. P. Bernard, Y. Ville. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. First published: 21 September 2007 DOI: 10.1002/uog.4465)

08.10.2007 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (Event date: Monday, 8 October 2007)

00.11.2007 Dr. Hutchon's manuscript, UOG 99/155, and associated files had been removed, mysteriously, from UOG's system in November 2007, with the reason for their removal and by whom still unknown to Dr. Hutchon (see entry 31.07.2017). Dr. Hutchon learned of this on 31.07.2017 via an email reply from Sarah Hatcher, Managing Editor of UOG. Ms. Hatcher replied to Dr. Hutchon's email request within 17-minutes stating the files for his manuscript had been removed from the UOG system in November 2007, and she punctuated her reply with an exclamation mark. Interestingly, Yves Ville was Editor-in-Chief at the time Dr. Hutchon's manuscript, UOG 99/155, and its associated files had been removed by person(s) and reasons unknown from UOG's system.

00.02.2008 NCFM eSnurra Group replied to Correspondence from Bergen Group regarding specific problems with NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 study. NCFM eSnurra Group were asked to explain BPD data irregularities (excerpts below). Moreover, these data irregularities are known to Norwegian Directorate of Health, but Norwegian Directorate of Health has decided to ignore them.

"...failing to account for the inclusion of fetuses with an elongated head whose biparietal diameter was adjusted based on the longitudinal axis of the skull."
"The midwives trained at the center in Trondheim have been recommended to measure the fronto-occipital diameter in fetuses considered to be dolichocephalic, and to use this information in order to assign an expanded virtual BPD for the calculation of gestational age and day of confinement. We cannot see that the authors have given any account of these fetuses or how this procedure influenced the statistics." (Source: Correspondence, Re: A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population-based approach. Problems of accounting for a retrospective selection, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31: 225–228:)

29.02.2008 Dr. Hutchon sought out and met, face-to-face, with Dr. Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (UOG), also known as The White Journal, subsequent to Dr. Ville's 14:10 Ultrasound diagnostics presentation at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) in London commemorating Dr. Ian Donald. Dr. Hutchon expressed his disappointment and frustration that Dr. Ville and UOG had taken no action after he had sent 2 registered letters to UOG addressed to "The Editor." Dr. Hutchon, again, requested a by-the-book investigation and redress for the appropriation and plagiarism of his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, in NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 published 08.06.2007 by UOG. Dr. Ville assured Dr. Hutchon he would investigate the appropriation of Dr. Hutchon's idea and method in the Gjessing et al. 2007 paper published by UOG; and, Dr. Ville also told Dr. Hutchon he thought Dr. Hutchon's idea was "brilliant" (see entries: 29.02.2008 & 13.02.2009). Neither Dr. Ville, nor anyone else at UOG or ISUOG, ever investigated or sought redress or followed-up with Dr. Hutchon. Moreover, Dr. Hutchon had been unaware of Dr. Ville's co-authorship of the oral poster abstract based, entirely, on the Hutchon Method of PDEE, presented at the 17th World Congress on Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology on 08.10.2007 and published by UOG 4-months prior to Dr. Hutchon and Dr. Ville's face-to-face meeting of 29.02.2008. Moreover, Dr. Hutchon was unaware his manuscript "UOG 99/155: Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery" had been "removed," mysteriously, from UOG's system in November 2007, 3-months prior to his 29.02.2008 face-to-face meeting with Dr. Ville at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) in London.

11.04.2008 Dr. Hutchon corresponded with Digisonics, Inc. (Houston, TX, USA) regarding their desire to incorporate one of Dr. Hutchon's fetal calculators from his Hutchon.net website, a first-trimester fetal risk calculator for Down's Syndrome, into Digisonics' software offering which Digisonics describes as: "The OB-View PACS & Ultrasound Reporting System is a standards-based and vendor-neutral system for OB/GYN Ultrasound."

Letter from Digisonics, Inc. seeking permission from Dr. Hutchon.
Mail from "Sandra Rivera" <[email protected]>
date Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:46: 18 -0500
to <[email protected]>
cc
subject Re: Digisonics: Fetal Calculator Inquiry
memo

Dear Mr. Hutchon,

Thank you for responding, we greatly appreciate it. We are looking into your
calculations of 1st Trimester fetal risk for Down's Syndrome, the link is
below. About incorporating it to our software, I believe our techs would be
able to look into it. We were just wondering if we may have your permission
to incorporate the calculator into our software, giving you full credit of
course. I hope to hear from you soon and have a great weekend.

http://www.hutchon.net/GrowthdownUShookBPD.htm

Kind Regards,
Sandra Rivera
(Source: Dr. David J. R. Hutchon, personal correspondence)

December 2008 Reynir Thomas Geirsson, Chief Editor, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, Professor/Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Womens' Clinic, Landspitali University Hospital, Hringbraut, IS-101 Reykjavik, wrote and published an Editorial regarding plagiarism: "Salami slicers and other intellectual irregulars" Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, Volume 87, 2008 - Issue 12, Pages 1264-1265. Published online 03.08.2009. Included below are relevant excerpts. More about Dr. Geirsson at timeline dates: 22.03.2013, 10.05.2016, 02.05.2017 & 04.05.2017.

"Perhaps this [plagiarism] is likely to occur in a competitive environment where careers are to some extent dependent on academic achievement measured in numbers of publications.“ (p. 1264)
"At Acta as elsewhere, this is an unacceptable practice. We take it seriously in our dealings with the authors at fault." (p. 1264)
"In moments of weakness, absentmindedness, misguided ambition or vanity anything can happen to all of us, even willful deception. Just Google the words ‘scientific misconduct' and see what you find. Amazing stuff." (p. 1264)
"There are even those who fabricate science, lie about Material, Methods and Results or steal what others have worked hard to create. It happens at even the most widely distributed and best respected journals that authors deviate from accepted standards of scientific conduct. There are well known examples, also from the Nordic countries, most recently the infamous falsification case by Jon Sudbo" (5)." (p. 1264)
"It is wise to remember that we have a duty to expose such things if we are aware of them, and that includes at our own institutions." (p. 1265)

13.02.2009: 20:36 Dr. Hutchon emailed Dr. Zarko Alfirevic and Dr. David Wright regarding: "Down Syndrome risk calculation." In his email Dr. Hutchon also communicated his frustration and disappointment with the results of his by-the-book efforts for redress of the appropriation of his original idea and method of PDEE after having sent Gjessing et al. 2007 autors (NCFM eSnurra Group) and Dr. Yves Ville, then Editor-in-Chief of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (UOG) multiple letters. Specifically, Dr. Hutchon had: 1) sent Dr. Ville a letter dated 26.07.2007 about his evidence-based concerns that the NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 paper had appropriated his original idea and method and presented same as their own original work, 2) met face-to-face with Dr. Ville on 29.02.2008 at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) in London and 3) "sent [Dr. Ville] at least one registered letter with all the supporting data" (email excerpt below).

There is however the "Back to the future for Hemani Boerhaave" which is entirely my own work and "original thought". Despite submitting the proposal and demonstration to numerous journals including Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynaecology when Stuart Campbell was editor it was never accepted. It surely must be logical and like your proposal provides a way of validating dating charts. Furthermore the potential for huge numbers of routine maternity patients with certain outcomes and dating, there is the opportunity for customised dating charts. There is some evidence that there are variations between ethnic groups and fetal sex, and in a poster I presented at the BMFMS meeting in York some years ago showed that in addition maternal age and size may also have an influence. In time I gave up as it could be argued that my method was simply a "nicety".

However I was surprised to find an article in the UOG about eighteen months ago by Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eik-Nes SH.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jul;30(1):19-27. titled A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population-based approach.
[Note: Dr. Hutchon included the entire Abstract of Gjessing et al. 2007 (i.e., Gjessing, HK, Grøttum P, Eik-Nes SH) here.]

Their database was very much larger than I had available and their statistical techniques were more sophisticated but the approach and principle were identical. They never replied. I also never got a reply from the Editor Dr Ville, in spite of having spoken to him at Ian Donald's commemorative meeting at the College about it and stating that the idea was brilliant and he would look into it. I sent at least one registered letter with all the supporting data.

Let me know what you think of the website www.hutchon.net which has at the bottom the Boerhaave story.
(Source: Dr. David J. R. Hutchon, personal correspondence: From: David Hutchon <[email protected]>, Sent: 13 February 2009 20:36, To: [email protected]; [email protected], Subject: Down Syndrome risk calculation)

It is interesting to note Dr. Zarko Alfirevic was appointed to NCFM eSnurra Group member Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis Assessment Committee. Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis states (p. 3) her 2012DT was principally supervised by Sturla H. Eik-Nes and co-supervised by Håkon K. Gjessing and Per Grøttum, the 3 original NCFM eSnurra Group members and the 3 copyright owners (© 2007 EikNes, Grøttum og Gjessing). Økland;s 2012DT included 4 papers that all resulted from studies that were based, entirely, on the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, with 2 of the papers citing Dr. Hutchon for LMP history & use and selection bias, but not for the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, an obvious insult. All the while, Zarko Alfirevic and the entire NCFM eSnurra Group remained completely and collectively silent while knowing: 1) research misconduct via plagiarism began with the publication of NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 publication, followed by the more prominent Gjessing et al. 2007, 2) NCFM eSnurra Group had been engaged in ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism since 2005, 3) Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis was, and remains, research misconduct via plagiarism and academic fraud and 4) by knowing all this and then having served as a member of Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis Assessment Committee and having adjudicated Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis, Dr. Zarko Alfirevic had engaged in research misconduct via plagiarism and academic fraud.

11.12.2009: Salomon et al. 2010, coauthored by Dr. Yves Ville while Editor-in-Chief of UOG, was published by The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, was based, entirely, on the appropriated, plagiarized Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) without attribution to Dr. Hutchon or his seminal Hutchon 1998 or other publications. Dr. Yves Ville's contributions to Salomon et al. 2010 were defined in the Acknowledgements as: "Y. Ville supervised the study and the manuscript writing." Salomon et al. 2010: Prediction of the date of delivery based on first trimester ultrasound measurements: An independent method from estimated date of conception, Laurent J. Salomon, Costanza Pizzi, Antonio Gasparrini, Jean-Pierre Bernard & Yves Ville, The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine Volume 23, 2010 - Issue 1. Received 12 Apr 2009, Accepted 29 May 2009, Published online: 11 Dec 2009.

Salomon et al. 2010 authors, which included Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, extensively cited NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 which had also appropriated and plagiarized the Hutchon Method of PDEE. Moreover, Salomon et al. 2010 authors cited the NCFM eSnurra Group's affiliated Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001 which had also appropriated and plagiarized the Hutchon Method of PDEE. However, Salomon et al. 2010 authors appeared somewhat confused in the excerpt below in which they cite Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001 as follows:

"This is in agreement with smaller biological variation of fetal size in early pregnancy and Taipale and Hiilesmaa [21] found that the prediction error in GA estimates to be lowest at 12–14 weeks’ gestation. At earlier gestation, Taipale and Hiilesmaa [21] found crown-rump length measurement of 15–60 mm to be the best determinant, whereas BPD (at least 21 mm) was more precise thereafter. Accuracy was not improved when any two or all ultrasound variables were included in prediction models, confirming previous observations that combining informations from more than one adequately obtained ultrasound measurement in estimating the day of the delivery is not effective [17,21]."

The confusion is that Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001 authors and their NCFM Snurra Group collaborators had appropriated and plagiarized the Hutchon Method of PDEE in their study Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001 and, therefor, did not have the ability to estimate GA. Taipale & Hiilesmaa needed to calculate GA from direct EDD estimates, using the equivalent of Naegele's rule. Specifically, it was not prediction error in GA Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001 found to be lowest at 12-14 weeks' gestation, it was prediction error in EDD at 12-14 weeks' gestation. Therefore, from this citation alone, it is not clear Salomon et al. 2010 authors were aware the source they had cited, Taipale & Hiilesmaa 2001, had also plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE. Although, this should have been clear from the extensive citation of Gjessing et al. 2007 in Salomon et al. 2010. Nevertheless, one thing that is perfectly clear is that Dr. Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief of UOG, knew everything about the appropriation and plagiarism of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE by Gjessing et al. 2007 and Salomon et al. 2010 (see Hutchon Timeline entry 29.02.2008).

Interestingly, the following year Laurent J. Salomon coauthored a practice guideline with Zarko Alfirevic and other coauthors: "Practice guidelines for performance of the routine mid-trimester fetal ultrasound scan" published by Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 07.12.2010. It stands to reason Zarko Alfirevic was aware Salomon had coauthored Salomon et al. 2010 with Yves Ville and, consequently, knew Salomon et al. 2010 was based, entirely, on the Hutchon Method of PDEE given Dr. Hutchon had explained the appropriation and plagiarism of his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, in an email to Zarko. Alfirevic and Dr. David Wright dated 13.02.2009 (see Hutchon Timeline entry 13.02.2009).

Unlike the Editorial Board of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., there is no evidence the Editorial Board of The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, published by Taylor & Francis Group, Academic Publishing Division of Informa PLC, had been notified or had been aware the Hutchon Method of PDEE had been plagiarized in Salomon et al. 2010.

18.12.2009 A "Comment and Reply" Letter to the Editor of The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine between NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 (comment) and Salomon et al. 2010 (reply) was published. The "Comment and Reply" exchange was in regards to their respective approaches and techniques of their respective implementations of the Hutchon Method of PDEE.

"Anyway, we deem that our well-implemented and reproducible method represents a useful tool for gestational age assessment and date of delivery prediction." (Source: "Comment and reply on: Prediction of the date of delivery based on first trimester ultrasound measurements: an independent method from estimated date of conception" Håkon K. Gjessing, Per Grøttum, Inger Økland & Sturla H. Eik-Nes. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, August 2010; 23(8): 944–947.Published online: 18 Dec 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14767050903420309)

NCFM eSnurra Group had claimed Dr. Hutchon's original idea and Method of PDEE as their own original idea and method by appropriating and plagiarizing same in NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 published 08.09.2005 by UOG and later more prominently in Gjessing et al. 2007. Interestingly, NCFM eSnurra Group sought to protect and defend their plagiarism from a perceived encroachment by Salomon et al. Group, even though Salomon et al. 2010 had extensively cited Gjessing et al. 2007, but not Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998. Consequently, NCFM eSnurra Group demonstrated what can only be described as excessive plagiarism-based claiming behavior in their comments to Salomon et al. Group (excerpts below, emphasis added).

"It is very interesting to see the median-based direct prediction method that we developed for second trimester measurements [,] being applied to first trimester data."
"Although the size of their study is much smaller than ours, it illustrates the strength of our population-based method; when high-quality registry data are available, the direct method provides a prediction model adapted to the clinical setting that the data were collected under, whether it is first- or second trimester routine scans."
"To avoid obscuring the central concept, it should be stressed that the essence of the authors' approach is precisely the one developed in our paper, namely a direct estimation of median (and other centiles) of remaining time of pregnancy."
"In fact, this is precisely one of the important empirical questions that can be addressed with our direct prediction method."
"This is precisely what the direct prediction method can provide. It may well be the case that first trimester scans provide higher precision than second trimester scans, but it would be very useful to see this verified scientifically, which could be done with our direct prediction method."
"In conclusion, we welcome the authors' application of our direct prediction approach to first trimester measurements."
"We believe our approach opens for the development of population-based prediction curves over a large range of measurements and populations."
"While we fail to see any particular advantages of the alternative quantile smoothing approach suggested by the authors, the advantages of our direct prediction method are still obvious: it obtains fully ultrasound-based estimates of median birth term, and allows the precision of these estimates to be assessed and quantified directly."

(Source: Comment and reply on: Prediction of the date of delivery based on first trimester ultrasound measurements: an independent method from estimated date of conception, Håkon K. Gjessing, Per Grøttum, Inger Økland & Sturla H. Eik-Nes (2010), The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 23:8, 944-947, DOI: 10.3109/14767050903420309) Salomon et al. 2010 paper: (Source: Prediction of the date of delivery based on first trimester ultrasound measurements: An independent method from estimated date of conception, Laurent J. Salomon, Costanza Pizzi, Antonio Gasparrini, Jean-Pierre Bernard & Yves Ville, The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine Volume 23, 2010 - Issue 1) NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 paper: (Source: "A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population-based approach," H. K. GJESSING, P. GRØTTUM and S. H. EIKNES; Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 19–27, DOI: 10.1002/uog.4053) Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 19–27, p. 21)
Again, Dr. Yves Ville was was a coauthor of Salomon et al. 2010 while he was Editor-in-Chief of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynaecology.

26.01.2010 Dr. Hutchon corresponded with Jason Gardosi, Professor of Obstetrics in Birmigham and Phillip Steer, Editor British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (BJOG) in which he called attention to the NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 paper featuring the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), then referred to as Dr. Hutchon's Hermanni Boerhaave method, an homage to Boerhaave, per the full title of Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998: "'Back to the Future' for Hermanni Boerhaave or 'A rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery'"

"I am sure that integrating ultrasound measurement of fetal size with population charts ideally based on early ultrasound dating using a more valid methodology explained in hXXp://www.obgyn.net/us/cotm/9807/cotm_9807.htm [URL since updated] together with customised growth assessment is the way forward. I expect you saw the article in UOG a couple of years ago proposing my “Back to the future for Hermanni Boerhaave” method." [updated URL: http://www.obgyn.net/obgyn-ultrasound/back-future-hermanni-boerhaave-or-rational-way-generate-ultrasound-scan-charts-estimating-date]

08.06.2010  NCFM eSnurra Group's Økland et al. 2010 paper was published without attribution to Dr. Hutchon for the Hutchon Method of PDEE. Paper: Biases of traditional term prediction models: results from different sample-based models evaluated on 41 343 ultrasound examinations I. ØKLAND, H. K. GJESSING, P. GRØTTUM and S. H. EIK-NES, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36: 728–734. DOI: 10.1002/uog.7707, Manuscript Accepted: 26 May 2010, Accepted manuscript online: 8 June 2010, Version of record online: 8 June 2010, Issue online: 24 November 2010. This NCFM eSnurra Group publication referenced Dr. Hutchon's 2001 letter to the editor regarding the article "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal," D.J.R. Hutchon, F. Ahmed, BJOG Volume 108, Issue 7, July 2001, Page 775. Referencing excerpt: "In addition, the models estimate a date of the last menstrual period (LMP) from the fetal ultrasound measurements; the subsequent prediction of day of delivery is done simply by adding approximately 280 days to the estimated, and therefore ‘artificial’, LMP date 10. (p. 729) This 2010 NCFM eSnurra Group paper uses Dr. Hutchon's "Naegele's rule: a reappraisal" letter to make a point about adding 280 days to LMP when the entire point of Dr. Hutchon's 20-sentence letter was sentence number 9: "We propose a method for generating ultrasound dating charts which eliminates the uncertainty of the last menstrual period and the uncertainty of the length of gestation." Given that this one sentence is the essence of what NCFM eSnurra Group's entire study and the resulting Gjessing et al. 2007 paper had been based upon, and what all NCFM eSnurra Group studies and papers since have been based upon, why did NCFM eSnurra Group completely ignore the rest of Dr. Hutchon's letter, especially sentence number 12: "We have proposed a method for the generation of ultrasound dating charts which mimics the method of Boerhaave 3 by replacing the last menstrual period with ultrasound scan." Reference citation: "10. Hutchon DJ, Ahmed F. Naegele’s rule: a reappraisal. BJOG 2001; 108: 775"

17.06.2010  NCFM eSnurra Group's Økland et al. 2011 was published without attribution to Dr. Hutchon for the Hutchon Method of PDEE. Paper: A new population-based term prediction model vs. two traditional sample-based models: validation on 9046ultrasound examinations I. ØKLAND, H. K. GJESSING, P. GRØTTUM, T. M. EGGEBØ and S. H. EIK-NES, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 207–213. DOI: 10.1002/uog.7728, Manuscript Accepted: 26 May 2010, Accepted manuscript online: 17 June 2010, Version of record online: 17 June 2010, Issue online: 24 January 2011. This 2010 NCFM eSnurra Group paper references Dr. Hutchon's 2001 paper: "The models thus calculate an ‘artificial’ LMP 19 and 280–282 days has to be added to obtain the estimated date of delivery (EDD)." (p.208) Reference citation: "19. Hutchon DJ, Ahmed F. Naegele’s rule: a reappraisal. BJOG 2001; 108: 775." (p. 213)

15.03.2011  Inger Økland, a member of the NCFM eSnurra Group accessed and read Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 that described the Hutchon Method of PDEE and remained silent. Following is the reference from page 95 of her 2012DT: "Hutchon DJ. "Back to future" for Hermaani Boerhaave, or, "A rational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the date of delivery". OBGYN.net: 1998; http://www.obgyn.net/us/cotm/9807/cotm_9807.htm [Accessed 15 March 2011]"

00.07.2011 NCFM eSnurra Group's Økland et al. 2011.07 was published without attribution to Dr. Hutchon for the Hutchon Method of PDEE. Paper: "Narrowed beam width in newer ultrasound machines shortens measurements in the lateral direction: fetal measurement charts may be obsolete" I. ØKLAND, T. G. BJASTAD, T. F. JOHANSEN, H. K. GJESSING, P. GRØTTUM and S. H. EIK-NES. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 82–87. DOI: 10.1002/uog.8954. Accepted: 26 January 2011, Published July 2011.

00.00.2012  Dr. Hutchon corresponded with a colleague, Murray Enkin, at McMaster University, Canada, in which Dr. Hutchon communicated his frustration and disappointment with the results of his by-the-book efforts for redress of the appropriation of his original idea and method of PDEE (excerpt below).

"I've been a very ordinary OB-GYN, but over the years I got B's under my bonnet, usually slightly nit-picking, perhaps but I felt the principles were correct. For example the Back to the Future for Hermanni Boerhaave story for ultrasound dating charts. About 5 years ago someone produced the same idea in The White Journal but they refused to acknowledge it was the same as I had had on the internet for 10 years."

00.01.2012 Dr. Yves Ville started his term as President of ISUOG (2012-2014)

13.01.2012 NCFM eSnurra Group member Inger Økland successfully defended her NTNU (dr.philos.) Doctoral Thesis. The Thesis was published and featured on the NCFM eSnurra website: Doctoral Thesis: Biases in second-trimester ultrasound dating related to prediction models and fetal measurements, Inger Økland, (dr.philos.) Doctoral Thesis, NTNU, 13 January 2012. Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis states (p. 3) her PhD Thesis had been supervised by the NCFM eSnurra Group: Principal Supervisor: Sturla H. Eik-Nes, MD, PhD , Co-supervisors: Håkon K. Gjessing, PhD & Per Grøttum, MD, PhD, the three original members of the NCFM eSnurra Group and the three eSnurra "copyright owners" (© 2007 EikNes, Grøttum og Gjessing) as stated on the NCFM eSnura website. All four of the NCFM eSnurra Group papers included in Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis were based on the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, without attribution to Dr. Hutchon.

00.05.2012 NCFM eSnurra Group's Økland et al. 2012 was published without attribution to Dr. Hutchon for the Hutchon Method of PDEE. Paper: "Advantages of the population-based approach to pregnancy dating: results from 23 020 ultrasound examinations" ØKLAND, J. NAKLING, H. K. GJESSING, P. GRØTTUM and S. H. EIK-NES. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Vol. 39, Issue 5 Pages 489–608, May 2012. Accepted: 18 August 2011.

26.11.2012 NCFM eSnurra Group published "eSnurra Growth - Method Description," an 8-page publication which appears to be a marketing brochure to increase awareness and purchase of the the new NCFM eSnurra circular slide rule to which Growth prediction/estimation had been added to BPD, FL & MAD predictions/estimations of EDD. Moreover, this publication appears to be a precursor to NCFM eSnurra Groups Gjessing et al. 2017 (below) entitled: "Fetal size monitoring and birth-weight prediction: a new population-based approach" which is the most current NCFM eSnurra Group publication to appropriate, plagiarize and misuse the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation. However, while the brochure cites and references 11 NCSM eSnurra Group publications, it does not reference Gjessing et al. 2017, indicating it was published before Gjessing et al. 2017. The date for this brochure is not know, as there is no identifiable calendar date in the 8-page brochure; however, the "eSnurra" Facebook page dates it to 26.11.2012. The eSnurra circular slide rule or pregnancy wheel is sold as a product for kr 249.00 (including VAT) or $32.20 via Legebutikken.no . Included below is the product description of "Pregnancy Calendar eSnurra" a description which continues NCFM eSnurra Group's appropriation, plagiarism and misuse of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, as their own original idea and method.

Pregnancy Calendar eSnurra
Pregnancy Calendar Snurra has become even better! Based on data from 40,000 pregnancies, this wheel answers when a pregnant woman can expect her term.

eSnurra is an updated version of Snurra, which was the nationwide standard for 20 years. The method, developed jointly by the National Center for Fetal Medicine, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and the University of Oslo, is used in much of the country. eSnurra was launched in 2007.

eSnurra calculates the term date directly from the fetus size based on statistics. You can also enter additional parameters.
Graviditetskalenderen eSnurra
Graviditetskalenderen Snurra er blitt enda bedre! Basert på data fra 40.000 svangerskap gir dette hjulet deg svar på når den gravide kan vente at hun har termin.

eSnurra er en oppdatert versjon av Snurra, som var den landsdekkende standarden i 20 år. Metoden, som er utviklet i fellesskap av Nasjonalt senter for fostermedisin, Folkehelseinstituttet og Universitetet i Oslo, brukes i store deler av landet. eSnurra ble lansert i 2007.

eSnurra beregner termindatoen direkte fra fosterets størrelse basert på statistikk. Du kan også legge inn flere andre parametre.

22.03.2013 Dr. Hutchon and Dr. Geirsson with his wife met unexpectedly at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, (RCOG). Dr Hutchon had just attended a meeting of the Retired Members and Fellows Society (RMFS)(RCOG) and was leaving to go home. Dr. Geirsson and his wife had just arrived and were attending the Founders Lecture and Dinner. Dr. Hutchon and Dr. Geirsson briefly discussed Dr. Hutchon's efforts to promote delayed cord clamping. The following day Dr. Hutchon followed up with Dr. Geirsson via email to share published papers of his efforts for the clinical implementation of delayed cord clamping and his efforts in the clinical need, initial design and development of the BASICS trolley and then the LifeStart™ trolley. More about Dr. Geirsson at timeline date: 02.05.2017.

"Evolution of neonatal resuscitation with intact placental circulation" David Hutchon, Infant 2014; 10(2): 58-61. "Key Points: Evolution of neonatal resuscitation with intact placental circulation. . 1. Delayed cord clamping benefits healthy newborn infants and is likely to provide even more benefit to the asphyxiated neonate. 2. Recent developments permit resuscitation to be carried out at the mother's side while the placental circulation remains intact."
"Motherside care of the term neonate at birth" Hutchon and Bettles, Maternal Health, Neonatology, and Perinatology (2016) 2:5. "Authors’ contributions: David Hutcon conceived the clinical need and drafted the clinical part of the manuscript. N. Bettles had led the design modifications and drafted the engineering part of the manuscript."

08.04.2013 In a letter dated 16.05.2012 Ministry of Health and Care Services commissioned Directorate of Health to assemble an "independent group of experts" to review Norway's regulations and practices related to late-term abortions. This excerpt (below, empahasis added) and the associated references were taken from the report created by this group dated 08.04.2013: "Report: Independent Expert Group for Evaluation of Abortions" ("Rapport: Uavhengig ekspertgruppe for vurdering av svangerskapsavbrudd").

"In Norway, an ultrasound exam in full-week 18 is part of pregnancy care. The ultrasound method used systematically for age and term is quality assured against the last menstruation as a method ("Nägeles rule") and generally found better. In Norway, the ultrasound method "Snurra" [4] was introduced in 1984 and soon used throughout the country. The method introduced a review of pregnancy in integers. In 2005, the ultrasound method "The Term Wheel" was published [9]. The population-based method "eSnurra" came in 2007 to improve "Snurra" and "Term wheel" [6], "eSnurra" has been validated last year on 72000 pregnancies [16-18]." (Source: "Report: IndependentExpert Group for Evaluation of Abortions" ("URapport: avhengig ekspertgruppe for vurdering av svangerskapsavbrudd") Oslo 8. april 2013, Stein Kinserdal /s/, Leder., p. 19)
- 4) Eik-Nes SH and Grøttum P. Graviditetskalenderen Snurra. Scan-Med A/S, Drammen, Norway,1983.
- 6) Gjessing HK, Grøttum P and Eik-Nes SH. A direct method for ultrasound prediction of day of delivery: a new, population-based approach. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 19-27
- 16) Økland I, Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eik-Nes SH. Biases of traditional term prediction models: results from different sample-based models evaluated on 41 343 ultrasound examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36: 728–734.
- 17) Økland I, Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eggebø TM, Eik-Nes SH. A new population-based term prediction model vs. two traditional sample-based models: validation on 9046 ultrasound examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 207– 213.
- 18) Økland I, Nakling J, Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eik-Nes SH. Advantages of the population-based approach to pregnancy dating demonstrated with results from 23,020 ultrasound examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39:563-8.

While the "Report: Independent Expert Group for Evaluation of Abortions" did not identify content contributions by individual members, the excerpt (above) was clearly contributed by Sturla H. Eik-Nes of NCFM eSnurra Group, identified as a member of the expert group (page 8) as follows: "Sturla Eik-Nes, professor/seksjonsoverlege: Nasjonalt senter for fostermedisin, St. Olavs." Also, it is interesting to note:

in this 5-sentence excerpt (above), Sturla H. Eik-Nes cites 5 publications coauthored by Sturla H. Eik-Nes (excerpts below)
of these 5 citations, 4 were references to NCFM eSnurra Group publications which had plagiarized Dr. David J. R. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE)
3 of these cited publications (16, 17 & 18) which had plagiarized the Hutchon Method of PDEE were the first 3 papers of the 4 papers which had plagiarized the Hutchon Method of PDEE included in Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis
Sturla H. Eik-Nes was the principal supervisor of Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis along with 2 co-supervisors from NCFM eSnurra Group, Gjessing and Grøttum
Økland had been (and remains) a member of NCFM eSnurra Group since 2007 and is currently engaged in her second year of employment with Directorate of Health

In summary, Sturla Eik-Nes, the head of NCFM eSnurra Group, knowingly included, via citations and references, 4 of NCFM eSnurra Group's publications which had plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), into a report that had been specifically commissioned by Ministry of Health and Care Services for Directorate of Health to oversee and then deliver to Ministry of Health and Care Services.

16.05.2013 NCFM eSnurra Group member Håkon K. Gjessing coauthored Pay et al. 2013 with Aase Serine Devold Pay and others which was based on the Hutchon Method of PDEE without attribution to Dr. Hutchon. Paper: "A new population-based reference curve for symphysis–fundus height" Aase Serine D. Pay, Jan Frederik Frøen, Anne Cathrine Staff, Bo Jacobsson, Håkon K. Gjessing. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica (AOGS) Volume 92, Issue 8, August 2013, Pages 925–933. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12157, Issue online: 16 July 2013, Version of record online: 16 May 2013, Accepted manuscript online: 24 April 2013, Manuscript Accepted: 17 April 2013, Manuscript Received: 3 September 2012. The x-axis or gestational age (GA) relies on NCFM eSnurra Group's method (i.e., the appropriated, plagiarized, misused Hutchon Method of PDEE) to estimate EDD and, therefrom, calculate GA using the equivalent of Naegele's rule, in reverse, to establish the GA vales, the x-axis values, for every plot point of every SYMFYSE - FUNDUSMÅL plot/graph on Helsedirectorate form IS-2253 11-2015. Note the display of the all-authors citation of Pay et al. 2013 on the GA vs. FS graph. Aase Serine Devold Pay is presently employed as a Senior Adviser, Hospital Services, Specialized Health Care Services, Norwegian Directorate of Health. In other words, Aase Serine Devold Pay, like Inger Økland, works for Torunn Janbu, Director of Hospital Services, Norwegian Directorate of Health. Consequently, Aase Serine Devold Pay, as an employee of Directorate of Health, had been aware Dr. Hutchon had developed and published the Hutchon Method of PDEE before NCFM eSnurra Group, similar to Inger Økland. Interestingly, Aase Serine Devold Pay, a midwife, Inger Økland, a medical doctor, and Ellen Blix, a midwife, registered a systematic review protocol in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017062455): "Effects of external cephalic version for breech presentation at term: a systematic review." Also interesting is the fact NCFM eSnurra Group member Håkon K. Gjessing supervised Aase Serine Devold Pay's 2016 UiO PhD Thesis and co-supervised Inger Økland's 2012 NTNU dr.philos. Thesis.

10.05.2016 Public defense in Oslo of Aase Serine Devold Pay's 2016 UiO PhD Thesis "Symphysis-fundus measurements and prediction of SGA in neonates"; supervised by Håkan K. Gjessing of NCFM eSnurra Group. Dr. Reynir Geirsson, MD, PhD, FRCOG, former Chief Editor of Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica (AOGS) (Reykjavík, Iceland) served as opponent in the public defense of Aase Serine Devold Pay's 2016 UiO PhD Thesis; a PhD thesis based on the Hutchon Method of PDEE without attribution to Dr. Hutchon and his seminal Hutchon 1998 nor his other publications. And, knowing this, Dr. Geirsson publicly confronted Aase Serine Devold Pay and Håkon K. Gjessing with the fact that Dr. Hutchon had developed his method,the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation before NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al.2007 paper. Further, Dr. Geirsson informed Gjessing that it was "mandatory" for Gjessing et al. to stop plagiarizing Dr. Hutchon's earlier work. See: HUTCHON TIMELINE entry: 02.05.2017.

In the wake of the Jon Sudbø case of research misconduct the research administrations at Oslo University Hospital (OUH) in collaboration with Haukeland University Hospital (Bergen) published a research handbook appropriately titled "From Idea to Publication: THE RESEARCH HANDBOOK" ("Fra Ide til publikasjon: FORSKNINGSHÅNDBOKEN")

References (p. 91)
"Regulations governing the references one should choose in one’s publications are generally lacking, except the restrictions applicable to plagiarism (see Chapter 16). The Norwegian Committees of Research Ethics (”forskningsetiske komiteer”) has published a paper on sound reference use in publications (https://www.etikkom.no/FBIB/Temaer/Redelighet-og-kollegialitet/)"

It is important to refer to high quality studies that provide a balanced account of the background for your research question, preferably reporting the original studies that first described the findings. Studies that confirm such findings may also be mentioned, but not without including the original paper. Reporting thoughts, ideas and statements from others, as if they were your own, is considered plagiarism. Plagiarism is intellectual theft, and is regulated in Norway by "Lov om opphavsrett til åndsverk", https://lovdata.no/dokument/åndsverkloven[Updated URL: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1961-05-12-2] as well as by "Lov om Universiteter og Høyskoler",https://lovdata.no/dokument/lov om Universiteter og Høyskoler [Updated URL: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-04-01-15].
Citation and ethics (p. 151)
"Correct use of references shows academic integrity and avoids plagiarism. Presentation of results, thoughts, ideas or formulations made by others, as your own, is plagiarism. Plagiarism is intellectual theft, and is regulated by several Norwegian acts, including "åndsverkloven"(https://lovdata.no/dokument/åndverksloven [Updated URL: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1961-05-12-2] and "universitet- og høyskoleloven" (https://lovdata.no/dokument/universitets-og høyskoleloven [Updated URL: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2005-04-01-15] ). See Chapter 9 (on publishing), as well as an article on the use of references in the "Research Ethics Library" (http://etikkom.no/FBIB)."
(Source: "From Idea to Publication: THE RESEARCH HANDBOOK" 7th Edition: 2017" [Norwegian: "Fra Ide til publikasjon: FORSKNINGSHÅNDBOKEN") Editors: Annetine Staff & Karin C Lødrup Carlsen; Coauthors: Harald Arnesen, Anne Grete Bechensteen, Anne Flem Jacobsen, Ernst Omenaas. Published by Oslo University Hospital in collaboration with Haukeland University Hospital)

Interestingly, Anne Cathrine (Annetine) Staff, co-editor and author of the Norwegian national research handbook: "From Idea to Publication: THE RESEARCH HANDBOOK", is a co-supervisor of Pay's 2016 UiO PhD Thesis and a coauthor of Papers II & III upon which Pay's 2016 UiO PhD Thesis is based.

Paper II. Pay ASD, Frøen JF, Staff AC, Jacobsson B, Gjessing HK: A new population-based reference curve for symphysis–fundus height. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92(8):925–933.
Paper III. Pay ASD, Frøen JF, Staff AC, Jacobsson B, Gjessing HK. Prediction of small-for-gestational-age status at birth by symphysis-fundus height: a registry-based population cohort study. BJOG 2015, DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13727 [Epub ahead of print].

01.06.2016 Just 3-weeks after Geirsson delivered his "mandatory" advice to Pay and Gjessing about acknowledging Dr. Hutchon for his original idea, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE) at the 10.05.2016 public defense of Pay's 2016 UiO PhD Thesis in Oslo, Geirsson appeared as a featured speaker with Gjessing and others, at the 01-02.06.2016 NCFM 25th Anniversary Symposium (Jubileumssymposium) at NCFM's Headquarters at St Olavs Hospital in Trondheim. NCFM eSnurra Group members Gjessing, Eik-Ness, Økland and Eggebø were the exclusive speakers during the 01.06.2016 prime-time, morning session which was titled: "Part 1 - Symposium about eSnurra, age, term, growth." The only original NCFM eSnurra Group member not a featured speaker was Per Grøttum. There is no evidence to suggest Gjessing implemented Geirsson's "mandatory" advice among either the NCFM eSnurra Group or the attendees, nor is there evidence to suggest Geirsson had pressed the plagiarism issue with anyone, either. It is clear the motivation behind Geirsson's 02.05.2017 email to Dr. Hutchon with its out-of-the-blue discussion of the Hutchon Methodof must be considered in the context of Geirsson's relationship with Gjessing, individually, and NCFM eSnurra Group, collectively. A PR article was written for "the Board" by Peter Montzka (Helse Møre og Romsdal HF, Ålesund, Obstetrics and Genecology) summarizing the event which was published in Ultraschall in Med. which included the following excerpt.

"It is rare that so much weighty national and international ultrasound expertise is gathered on Norwegian soil. It emphasizes that NSFM takes its responsibility to convey high level ultrasound expertise seriously. That it was all free was a generous gift for all participants and the many who over the years have contributed patients to the center."
("Det er sjeldent, at så mye nasjonalt og internasjonalt tungtveiende ultralydkompetanse er samlet på norsk jord. Det understreker at NSFM tar sitt ansvar med å formidle ultralydkompetanse på høyt nivå på alvor. At det hele var gratis var en generøs gave til alle deltakere og de mange som opp gjennom årene har bidratt med pasienter til senteret.") (Source: "25 år Nasjonalt senter for fostermedisin i Trondheim" Ultraschall in Med 2016; 37(04): 436-437)

This excerpt (above) identifies the quid pro quo charter of the event with apparent violations of Section 9 of Norway's "Act of 2 July 1999 No. 64 relating to Health Personnel etc.": "§ 9 Ban relating to the receiving of gifts while acting in a professional capacity" i.e., at least among the "generous gift" recipients.

"Abstract
When individuals exchange gifts, social bonds are strengthened and reciprocity is created. If the gift and the reciprocation both come from private resources, it is clearly a gift. If what is reciprocated after a gift is given comes from an organization, or is a government resource rather than from “one’s own pocket” then it is most likely a bribe. This study reviews the anthropological literature on gift giving and constructs a typology for examining the gift/bribe distinction in public administration. This classification helps distinguish analytically among different gift practices and clarify conceptual ambiguity of the terms gift and bribe." (Source: "Gift Giving and Corruption" Adam Graycar & David Jancsics. International Journal of Public Administration Volume 40, 2017 - Issue 12, Pages 1013-1023 | Published online: 07 Jun 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1177833)

Apparently, the low patient volume had become an issue

The 2014 Faglig vurdering, Referansegruppen: Vis vurdering stated: "Due to the low number of fetuses in Norway in need of advanced invasive treatment, the reference group considers it necessary to assess whether it is more appropriate to send these patients to larger treatment centers abroad." ("På bakgrunn av det lave antallet fostre i Norge med behov for avansert invasiv behandling mener referansegruppen det er behov for å vurdere om det er mer forsvarlig å sende disse pasientene til større behandlingssentre i utlandet.") (Source: "Reference Group's Feedback for National Treatment Services" 2014 ("Referansegruppenstilbakemelding for nasjonale behandlingstjenester" 2014)
The 2015 Faglig vurdering, Referansegruppen: Vis vurdering stated: "The number of fetuses in need of invasive treatment at the center is low, by 2015, only two fetuses in need of blood transfusion. Based on the low number of need for this type of treatment in Norway, the reference group believes that there is still a need to consider whether treatment of this patient category should be centralized to major obstetric centers abroad." ("Antallet fostre med behov for invasiv behandling ved senteret er lavt, i 2015 kun to fostre med behov for blodtransfusjon. På bakgunn av det lave antallet med behov for denne typen behandling i Norge mener referansegruppen at det stadig er behov for å vurdere om behandling av denne pasientkategorien bør sentraliseres til større fostermedisinske sentre i utlandet.") (Source: "Reference Group's Feedback for National Treatment Services" 2015 ("Referansegruppenstilbakemelding for nasjonale behandlingstjenester" 2015)
Interestingly, the following year, 2016, the number of patients "contributed" to the center was reported to have increased 71%, from 17 to 29 patients. Consequently, one might reasonably argue the "generous gift" (or quid pro quo), as published in Ultraschall in Medicine, worked. Specifically, Helse Sør-Øst RHF contributed 10 of the 12 additional patients.
- Source of Patients   2016 2017 % Change
  Helse Midt-Norge RHF 6   11 83%
  Helse Vest RHF 9    6    -33%
  Helse Sør-Øst RHF 1    11 1,000%
  Helse Nord RHF 1 1 0%
    Total:  17   29 71%
  (Source: "Nasjonal behandlingstjeneste for avansert invasiv fostermedisin, Aktivitet: https://forskningsprosjekter.ihelse.net/senter/rapport/NB-HMN-01/2016 &
  https://forskningsprosjekter.ihelse.net/senter/rapport/NB-HMN-01/2017)

Stuart Campbell also appeared as a featured speaker/presenter with Geirsson, Gjessing and others, at the 01-02.06.2016 NCFM 25th Anniversary Symposium. Stuart Campbell along with with Gjessing and 7 others, had received a copy of Dr. Hutchon's 26.07.2007 registered letter addressed to "The Editor, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynaecology," then Yves Ville, Editor-in-Chief, Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (UOG), also known as The White Journal, requesting an investigation and redress for the appropriation of his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, from his seminal Hutchon 1998, his website and his other publications by NCFM eSnurra Group who had claimed it as their own original idea and method in NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007, published 22.08.2007 by UOG, without attribution to Dr. Hutchon. Moreover, when Stuart Campbell served as Editor-in-Chief of UOG, prior to Yves Ville, he had received and reviewed Dr. Hutchon's manuscript "Proposed methodology for the preparation of ultrasound charts for estimating the date of delivery" which had been coded as UOG manuscript: UOG 99/155. Moreover, Stuart Campbell subsequently corresponded with Dr. Hutchon multiple times in reference to Dr. Hutchon's manuscript, UOG 99/155. Consequently, at the NCFM 25th Anniversary Symposium, Campbell, Geirsson and all of NCFM eSnurra Group were aware of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of PDEE and Dr. Hutchon's multiple, by-the-book attempts to seek an investigation and redress for NCFM eSnurra Group's appropriation and plagiarism of same in their Gjessing et al. 2007, published 22.08.2007 in UOG.

16.11.2016 NCFM eSnurra Group's Eggebø et al. 2016 was published without attribution to Dr. Hutchon for the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation. Paper: "Estimation of fetal weight in pregnancies past term" TORBJØRN M. EGGEBØ, OLAV A. KLEFSTAD, INGER ØKLAND, ELSA LINDTJØRN, STURLA H. EIK-NES & H!AKON K. GJESSING Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 96 (2017) 183–189. Issue online: 25 January 2017, Version of record online: 16 November 2016, Accepted manuscript online: 14 October 2016, Manuscript Accepted: 10 October 2016, Manuscript Received: 10 May 2016. It is interesting to note that the very same day, 10.05.2016; the day Geirsson was giving his "mandatory" stop-plagiarizing advice to Gjessing in Oslo, the manuscript for the NCFM eSnurra Group's Eggebø et al. 2016 paper, coauthored by Gjessing, was received by Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. Consequently, Gjessing and his coauthors had engaged in additional acts of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism on the same day Geirsson had given Gjessing the "mandatory" stop-plagiarizing advice.

02.05.2017 Dr. Hutchon received an email dated 02.05.2017 from Reynir Geirsson (Reykjavík, Iceland) and out of the blue Geirsson provided details of a 10.05.2016 conversation with Håkan Gjessing of NCFM eSnurra Group. Geirsson had served as an opponent in the public defense of the Pay 2016 UiO PhD Thesis referenced above. The complete text of Geirsson's email to Dr. Hutchon regarding this matter is included in the excerpt below. It is important to note Dr. Geirsson had not reviewed the fact-based evidence when he spoke with Gjessing in Oslo; consequently, when Geirsson concluded Gjessing "just had the same or similar idea" Geirsson was communicating his personal feeling, his personal belief based on his own stated idea that "Gjessing is a likeable and very intelligent guy." However, being likable, intelligent and unethical is the very combination which makes people most decidedly dangerous to the public trust.

"I also want to tell you that last spring I was opponent at a PhD dissertation in Oslo. I noticed that the method used for dating pregnancies was the one which you had proposed and mentioned that publicly during my remarks on the thesis. You may know that in the Nordic countries a thesis dissertation is an open public event and there must have been at least 100 hundred people in the audience. I was pleased to note in the reply that the doctoral candidate and her supervisor, the statistician Håkan Gjessing, were well aware of your work and that you had proposed this before them, but I also did convince myself that they spoke the truth when they told me that they had been genuinely unaware of your work. Gjessing is a likeable and very intelligent guy and having now twice discussed this with him I am sure that he just had the same or a similar idea of how to approach ultrasound dating. They have, I believe, since they received a letter from you, been careful to stress that you had described the same before them and I did stress to Gjessing that this was mandatory." (Source: Dr. David J. R. Hutchon, email received from Dr. Reynir Geirsson 02.05.2017)

It is a fact no member of NCFM eSnurra Group has ever cited, referenced or acknowledged Dr. Hutchon for his original idea and method of PDEE. Moreover, neither Gjessing (the corresponding author of NCFM eSnurra Groiup's Gjessing et al. 2007) nor any other member of NCFM eSnurra Group has ever replied to Dr. Hutchon's letter of 26.07.2007; a letter Geirsson informed Hutchon via email, Gjessing acknowledged he had received.

03.04.2017 NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2017 was published by UOG without attribution to Dr. Hutchon for his idea and method of PDEE. Paper: "Fetal size monitoring and birth-weight prediction: a new population-based approach" H. K. Gjessing, P. Grøttum, I. Økland, S. H. Eik-Nes Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Volume 49, Issue 4 April 2017, Pages 500–507. Issue online: 3 April 2017, Version of record online: 3 April 2017, Accepted manuscript online: 30 April 2016, Manuscript Accepted: 22 April 2016, Manuscript Revised: 4 April 2016, Manuscript Received: 30 June 2015. There were 328-days between the publication of NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2017 on 03.04.2017 and the 10.05.2016 Oslo PhD Thesis defense when and where Reynir Geirsson had instructed Gjessing on the "mandatory" fundamentals of how to stop long-term, ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism by acknowledging Dr. Hutchon "had described the same before them." Again, Geirsson stated, "and I did stress to Gjessing that this was mandatory." Obviously, Gjessing did not heed Geirsson's "mandatory" advice.

04.05.2017 15:50:06 Dr. Hutchon sent an email to Geirsson regarding family, early cord clamping and neonatal heart monitoring. Also included was the topic of the registered letter dated 17.09.2007 Dr. Hutchon had sent to Gjessing concerning NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 paper claiming Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of Populaiton-based Direct EDD Estimaion as NCFM eSnurra Group's own original idea and method.

"I often wondered if Gjessing ever got my registered letter. Perhaps he just never got around to it but it would have been nice and honorable to have written back to me."

04.05.2017 18:08:02 Geirsson's reply to Dr. Hutchon's email included the following regarding the registered letter dated 17.09.2007 Dr. Hutchon had sent Gjessing.

"yes, Gjessing received your letter. And I agree he might have replied. I am sorry to hear that he did not. I might drop him a line on this, ifl remember, since in Iceland we say that "late is better than never"."

11.06.2017 14:09: Dr. Hutchon sent an email (below) to Reynir Geirsson requesting Geirsson's thoughts about the publication of NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2017 on 03.04.2017, 328-days after the 10.05.2019 Oslo PhD Thesis defense when and where Raynir Geirsson had instructed Gjessing on the "mandatory" fundamentals of how to stop ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism by acknowledging Dr. Hutchon "had described the same before them." Again, Geirsson had stated, "and I did stress to Gjessing that this was mandatory." Clearly, Gjessing ignored Geirsson's "mandatory" advice. And, while Reynir Geirsson replied to Dr. Hutchon's email on 18.07.2017, with a cordial and complimentary email regarding Dr. Hutchon's delayed cord clamping work, Geirsson did not include his requested thoughts regarding Gjessing et al. not acknowledging Dr. Hutchon's original idea and Method of PDEE. Compare this lack of a reply to the quick, 2-hour reply Reynir Geirsson provided to Dr. Hutchon on 04.05.2017 (above) regarding the same subject; the subject Geirsson introduced, out of the blue, in his 02.05.2017 email to Dr. Hutchon.

Dr. Hutchon's 11.06.2017 email to Dr. Reynir Geirsson

Dear Reynir,

I came across this article in the UOG journal.

Fetal size monitoring and birth-weight prediction: a new population-based approach. H. K. GJESSING et al

May I ask what you think about this?

Best wishes,

David

08.07.2017 22:07 Dr. Hutchon received an email from Dr. Reynir Geirsson in which Dr. Geirsson stated he had not looked into the Gjessing et al. 2017 article published in UOG, but that he would and would not forget to do so. Again, Gjessing et al. 2017 paper was the latest published paper of NCFM eSnurra Group's 12-years of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and the Hutchon Method of PDEE, after Geirsson had personally informed Gjessing in Oslo on 10.05.2016 that is was "mandatory" to stop plagiarizing by acknowledging Dr. Hutchon's prior work.

"I still have to look at the Gjessing article you pointed out to me, and will come back on that. I have also had a lot to do in May and June with committee work and evaluations which I had undertaken to do. But I will not forget and also not forget to try to visit Darlington if I am near, or perhaps we might happen to be sufficiently close if we both are in Scotland." (Source: Dr. David J. R. Hutchon, email received from Dr. Reynir Geirsson 18.07.2017)

31.07.2017 Dr. Hutchon sent an email request for a copy of his manuscript UOG 99/155 to Sarah Hatcher, Managing Editor of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gyneacology. Ms. Hatcher, apparently a model of efficiency and author service, replied to Dr. Hutchon's email within 17-minutes stating "I'm afraid the files for this paper were removed from out system in November 2007!" Interestingly, Ms. Hatcher punctuated this sentence. The reason the files were removed remains unknown to Dr. Hutchon.

From: Sarah Hatcher <[email protected]>
Sent: 31 July 2017 12:36
To: 'David Hutchon'
Subject: RE: Former submission

Dear David
I’m afraid the files for this paper were removed from our system in November 2007!
Sorry not to be able to help.
Best wishes, Sarah.

27.08.2017 Dr. Hutchon replied to Ms. Hatcher, Managing Editor, UOG

From: David Hutchon
Sent: 01 August 2017 09:15
To: [email protected]
Subject: re Former submission

Dear Ms Hatcher,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I must confess I am confused and terribly disappointed. May I please ask what, exactly, you mean by "the files for this
paper were removed"? It has been my understanding manuscripts and their referees' reviews etc. would remain on file with UOG indefinitely. Is this no longer true?

As Managing Editor I am confident you can appreciate how important my manuscript is for writing an updated amended version. I would be most grateful if you could get back to me with whatever additional information you can.

Kind regards,
David Hutchon,

01.09.2017 Dr. Hutchon sent a followup email to Ms. Hatcher at UOG after month for a reply.

From: David Hutchon
Sent: 01 September 2017 20:38
To: Sarah Hatcher
Subject: Fw: re Former submission

Dear Sara,

It has now been a month since my email of 1st August 2017. May I please hear from you regarding the removal of my manuscript and associated files, UOG 99/155, from UOG's system in November of 2007

This is most distressing, which I am confident you can appreciate.

Thank you for your kind consideration and assistance.

Kind regards,
David
The ever-efficient Ms. Hatcher replied within 10 minutes.
From: Sarah Hatcher
Sent: 01 September 2017 19:47
To: 'David Hutchon'
Subject: RE: re Former submission

Dear David
I’m afraid there is nothing that can be done to retrieve files from a decade ago. I apologise for not being able to help on this occasion.

Kind regards
Sarah

02.09.2017 Dr. Hutchon replied to Ms. Hatche's 01.09.2017 with a question and a potential means by which Ms. Hatcher might reacquire a copy of Dr. Hutchon's manuscript, UPG 99/155. The second email, dated 17.09.2017, was sent by Dr. Hutchon to correct a typographical error as follows: referee's code 22 was corrected to referee's code 28.

From: David Hutchon
Sent: 02 September 2017 08:23
To: Sarah Hatcher
Subject: Re: re Former submission actual query

Dear Sarah,

Apologies for further email.

I have come to accept, albeit reluctantly, my manuscript and files were removed, however, I would at least like to know by whom and why.

Also, it is possible one of the three referees may still have a copy, just as I have copies of some of the papers I have refereed. Would you be able to check with them and, if successful, forward my manuscript to me? The referees editors' codes for my manuscript, UOG 99/155, are: 22, 212 and 504. [Note: the correct editors' codes from the 3 referees' reviews are: 28, 210 and 504.]

Again, thank you for your kind consideration.

Kind regards,
David

From: David Hutchon
Sent: 17 September 2017 09:45:28
To: [email protected]
Subject: Former submission actual query

Dear Sarah,

I noted that you have not replied to my previous question and I expect you could be waiting for a response from the referees. I have now noticed that I mis-typed one of the referee numbers which should have been 28, 212 and 504. [Note: the correct editors' codes from the 3 referees' reviews are: 28, 210 and 504.]

Again, thank you for your kind consideration., and apologies for the error and any additional effort involved.

Kind regards,

David Hutchon

00.10.2017 NCFM eSnurra Group member Håkon K. Gjessing engaged in yet another episode of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism with the publication of "Svangerskapsdatering" ("Pregnancy Dating") Håkon K. Gjessing. Norsk Epidemiologi 2017; 27 (1-2): 13-18. doi: 10.5324/nje.v27i1-2.2397.

Specifically, compare Dr. Hutchon's original idea communicated to Gardosi & Giersson in 1998 (red text segments in Hutchon Excerpt) regarding the Hutchon Method of PDEE with the same idea wrapped in Gessing's "Map versus Landscape" metaphor 20-years later (red text segments in Gjessing Excerpt).

Hutchon Excerpt:
"What exactly are we doing when we date a pregnancy by ultrasound? Clearly if no reliable menstrual data are available, there is no alternative to ultrasound dating. However, when apparently reliable menstrual data are available, it is not expected that the scan size should always fall precisely on the mean for that gestation. Nor does the way the ultrasound charts are generated support this expectation. It would be nonsense to suggest that all fetuses with a BPD of, say 35 mm, are all at precisely the same gestational age. If ultrasound dating is more accurate, then we are essentially proposing that the interval to delivery from the ultrasound scan of some specific value (e.g. 35mm) is less variable than the last menstrual period to delivery interval. Fetal size is being used as the predictor of the delivery interval. If using ultrasound size is the most accurate way to predict the date of delivery, then the ultrasound charts should be generated using these same principles." (Source: "CORRESPONDENCE Re: Routine ultrasound is the method of choice for dating pregnancy" David J. R. Hutchon, 11 November 1998, Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106, 610-616, p 616)
Gjessing Excerpt (English translation)
Map versus landscape. Population-based dating
"Since any dating method ultimately is to be used in a population context, it is obvious that a decisive criterion for quality is how the method performs when it is applied to clinical population data.

This was central to the development of eSnurra: when the criterion of good prediction is how it predicts (median) term in a population, it is most natural to develop the model so that it is actually optimized for this. Ultimately, it's the map that must match the landscape, not the opposite.

Based on this, eSnurra was made by predicting the remaining time of pregnancy based on BPD, so the time from the measurement was made until the pregnancy ended spontaneously. This was done on a large population material that is well represented for large parts of Norway. The evaluation of eSnurra in three major geographical regions in Norway clearly showed that the population-based model show very little bias, while the traditional sample-based models show bias in the same tests 10, 11." (Source: "Svangerskapsdatering" Håkon K. Gjessing. Norsk Epidemiologi 2017; 27 (1-2): 13-18. doi: 10.5324/nje.v27i1-2.2397. p. 1) [Citations 10 & 11 above (both references are plagiarism-based NCFM eSnurra Group publications which were also included in Økland's 2012 NTNU Thesis. 10. Økland I, Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eik-Nes SH. Biases of traditional term prediction models: results from different sample-based models evaluated on 41 343 ultrasound examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 36: 728-34. 11. Økland I, Gjessing HK, Grøttum P, Eggebø TM, Eik-Nes SH. A new population-based term prediction model vs. two traditional sample-based models: validation on 9046 ultrasound examinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 207-13.]
Gjessing Excerpt (Original Norwegian)
Kart versus landskap. Populasjonsbasert datering
"Siden enhver dateringsmetode til syvende og sist skal benyttes i en populasjonssammenheng er det åpenbart at et avgjørende kriterium for kvalitet er hvordan metoden oppfører seg anvendt på kliniske populasjonsdata.

Dette står sentralt i utviklingen av eSnurra: når kriteriet for god prediksjon er hvordan den predikerer (median) termin i en populasjon er det mest naturlig å utvikle modellen slik at den faktisk optimaliseres til dette. Til syvende og sist er det kartet som må stemme med landskapet, ikke motsatt.

Basert på dette ble eSnurra laget ved å predikere gjenværende tid av svangerskapet utfra BPD, altså tid fra målingen ble gjort til svangerskapet endte spontant. Dette ble gjort på et stort populasjonsmateriale som er godt representativt for store deler av Norge. Evalueringen av eSnurra på tre store geografiske regioner i Norge viste tydelig at den populasjonsbaserte modellen treffer med veldig lite bias, mens de tradisjonelle utvalgsbaserte modellene viser bias i de samme testene 10, 11."

NCFM eSnurra Group member Håkon K. Gjessing appropriated Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE in his October 2017 "Svangerskapsdatering" article in Norsk Epidemiologi, 12 and 10 years after NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 and Gjessing et al. 2007 appropriated Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method and claimed same as NCFM eSnurra Group's own original idea and method, thereby engaging in what is now 12-years of ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism. This time, however, Gjessing wrapped Dr. Hutchon's idea and method within the "map versus landscape" metaphor and declared the result to be the original idea of NCFM eSnurra Group. That is just how easy it is for NCFM eSnurra Group to continue to appropriate, launder, plagiarize and misuse Dr. Hutchon's original idea, method and works via ongoing research misconduct.

Hopefully, this fact-based point will refresh Dr. Geirsson's memory regarding:

1) his face-to-face, "mandatory" advice to Gjessing on 10.05.2016 in Oslo to stop plagiarizing Dr. Hutchon's work
"They have, I believe, since they received a letter from you, been careful to stress that you had described the same before them and I did stress to Gjessing that this was mandatory." (Source: Dr. David J. R. Hutchon, email received from Dr. Reynir Geirsson 02.05.2017)
In 2009, as Chief Editor of Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, Dr. Geirsson wrote and published an Editorial regarding plagiarism and plagiarists: "Salami slicers and other intellectual irregulars." Maybe it is time for Dr. Geirsson to walk-the-walk of his talk-the-talk Editorial regarding plagiarism and plagiarists, as there is no statute of limitations for plagiarism, as was made clear in the Asim Kurjak case of plagiarism, among other cases. Selected excerpts of Dr. Geirsson's talk-the-talk Editorial "Salami slicers and other intellectual irregulars"are included below.

"Perhaps this [plagiarism] is likely to occur in a competitive environment where careers are to some extent dependent on academic achievement measured in numbers of publications.“ (p. 1264)

"At Acta as elsewhere, this is an unacceptable practice. We take it seriously in our dealings with the authors at fault." (p. 1264)

"In moments of weakness, absentmindedness, misguided ambition or vanity anything can happen to all of us, even willful deception. Just Google the words ‘scientific misconduct' and see what you find. Amazing stuff." (p. 1264)

"There are even those who fabricate science, lie about Material, Methods and Results or steal what others have worked hard to create. It happens at even the most widely distributed and best respected journals that authors deviate from accepted standards of scientific conduct. There are well known examples, also from the Nordic countries, most recently the infamous falsification case by Jon Sudbo." (5)." (p. 1264) [Jon Sudbø was a Norwegian dentist, physician and medical researcher on faculty at the University of Oslo with a clinical position at Norwegian Radium Hospital. See: "Report from the Investigation Commission appointed by Rikshospitalet – Radiumhospitalet MC and the University of Oslo January 18, 2006" https://www.ous-research.no/general/docs/ekbom/Report_Investigation_Commission.pdf; also see: "Case Summary: Sudbo, Jon" The Office of Research Integrity, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-sudbo-jon; also see: "Respected Norwegian scientist faked study on oral cancer."; also see: "Research misconduct: lessons to be learned?" Magne Nylenna. Michael 2007;4:7–9. or PDF]

"It is wise to remember that we have a duty to expose such things if we are aware of them, and that includes at our own institutions." (p. 1265) (Source: "Salami slicers and other intellectual irregulars" Reynir Tómas Geirsson. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, Volume 87, 2008 - Issue 12, Pages 1264-1265. Published online 03.08.2009.)

To summarize: NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing October 2017 article appropriated and plagiarized Dr. Hutchon's original idea, yet again, from Dr. Hutchon's reply correspondence with Dr. Geirsson of 20-years ago (and Dr. Hutchon's other publications). Dr. Geirsson's 2009 Editorial regarding plagiarism and plagiarists, coupled with Dr. Geirsson's face-to-face "mandatory" advice to Gjessing in 2016 in Oslo to stop plagiarizing Dr. Hutchon's work make for a telling example of how and why plagiarism in international medical journals is tolerated and, in some cases, such as this case, perpetrated and facilitated by international medical journal editors e.g., Dr. Yves Ville at Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology and Dr. Reynir Geirsson at Acta Obste, respectively.

END of Hutchon Method of PDEE Timeline

Norwegian Government Funding: Research Misconduct
The NCFM eSnurra system was developed by a consortium of 3 individuals from 3 Norwegian government funded institutions. These 3 individuals are the original members of NCFM eSnurra Group and the 3 authors of of the Gjessing et al. 2007 published 08.06.2007 by UOG. Moreover, these 3 individuals are the 3 "copyright owners" of NCFM eSnurra, as identified on the NCFM eSnurra website (© 2007 Eik-Nes, Grøttum og Gjessing).

National Center for Fetal Medicine, Trondheim, Norway (NTNU), S. H. Eik-Nes
University of Oslo, Norway, P. Grøttum
Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway, H. Gjessing

The NCFM eSnurra Group events described in the Hutchon Method Timeline were all funded by the Norwegian government. Granted, Norway's unicameral legislative body, the Storting ("Great Council") did not debate and then vote on whether or not the Norwegian government should approve and fund the ongoing research misconduct which started with the appropriation of Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation, by NCFM eSnurra Group; an appropriation which was highly promoted and delivered as a policy implementation vehicle for Directorate of Health and Ministry of Health & Care Services to be the exclusive implementation vehicle for Directorate of Health's medically & ethically flawed 2014 Recommendation to:

estimate EDD and, therefrom, calculate GA, for all pregnancies in Norway and
establish medical age using GA calculated from NCFM eSnurra Groups estimation of EDD for all abortion decisions in Norway.

While the intention of the Norwegian government may not have been to fund ongoing research misconduct over the past 12-years, this is exactly what the Norwegian government did, which makes the point of not confusing intentions and efforts with results. It was the action and inaction among Norwegian government institutions combined with the unethical behaviors of Norwegian government representatives and employees which enabled and sustained ongoing research misconduct by NCFM eSnurra Group. Moreover, it appears no government Ministry, Directorate, national healthcare knowledge center, national fetal medicine center, public health institute or Norwegian university ever investigated the origin, provenance, dating and publications of the idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), nor did any Norwegian government institution or government representative or government employee ever contact Dr. Hutchon, which is strange given the fact the Norwegian government implemented the Hutchon Method of PDEE as the exclusive national method for that dating of all pregnancies and abortions in Norway.

Even today, after 20-years, it remains decidedly easy to find Dr. Hutchon's website and his seminal Hutchon 1998, without knowing Dr. Hutchon's name. In fact, this entire discussion of Dr. Hutchon and his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, is the direct result of an investigation into the origin, provenance, dating and publications of the idea and method of PDEE used by NCFM eSnurra Group; an investigation that identified Dr. Hutchon's website (Hutchon.net), his seminal Hutchon 1998, his other publications and his email address within 10-minutes of using nothing other than Google Search, via a keyboard. From the idea to the method to the website, to the publications, to an email address, to the man himself, within 10-minutes. However, and to be fair, several additional hours were required with Google Search and other search tools to become reasonably confident no prior publications nor implementations of PDEE were to be found other than those identified in the Hutchon Timeline. Even today, after 20-years, a Google Search of 4 obvious words "edd, ultrasound, delivery, interval" (without quotation marks) returns Dr. Hutchon's website as the first search result.

Dr. Hutchon's Story
As is often the case among entrepreneurs and researchers who commit to their ideas, Dr. Hutchon developed his original idea and method, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, himself. He conducted his own data collection (with fully acknowledged gratitude to the ultrasonographers and the midwives for entering the data), his own analyses, wrote his own software, planned and conducted his own research studies, all to develop his idea and method of PDEE into a working, Internet-accessible demonstration system on his Hutchon.net website. Dr. Hutchon accomplished all of this himself, funding everything out of his own pocket while working full-time as a practicing obstetrician in order to generate interest among other researchers, academics and practitioners of obstetric medicine using ultrasound. Dr. Hutchon especially sought to generate interest among a few medical centers or research institutes or fetal medicine centers with which Dr. Hutchon could collaborate to further develop and implement his idea and method of PDEE. And, in the process of generating interest, Dr. Hutchon made absolutely everything available on his website, datasets with the raw data (anonymized) to his software and URL links to his seminal Hutchon 1998 and other published works. Also, Dr. Hutchon explicitly included a copyright notice on his website (Copyright 1999, DJR Hutchon) to dissuade unauthorized implementation of his idea and method of PDEE from his website for commercial purposes and from blatant appropriation by the unethical. However, Dr. Hutchon always granted requests for the use and implementation of the Hutchon Method of PDEE for educational, instructional and personal, non-commercial uses. Unfortunately, Dr. Hutchon never collaborated with a medical center, research institute, fetal medicine center or government to further develop and implement his idea and method of PDEE, the Hutchon Method of PDEE, into the full potential Dr. Hutchon had envisioned, described and demonstrated in his seminal Hutchon 1998, Hutchon.net website, manuscript submissions and other publications. In order to demonstrate his method, Dr. Hutchon collected BPD and CRL data from his own hospital and additional CRL data from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England, made possible by the generous cooperation of Professor Robson and Mr Sturgiss of the Fetal Medicine Unit in Newcastle.

Eventually, Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE were recognized as valuable and worthy of investment by Norway's National Center for Fetal Medicine (NCFM), specifically, NCFM eSnurra Group. However, there was no collaboration nor partnership, nor attribution, nor acknowledgement of any kind for Dr. Hutchon because NCFM eSnurra Group appropriated Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method from his seminal Hutchon 1998, his Hutchon.net website and his other publications, and claimed Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE as their own original idea and method in NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005 and later in their more significant Gjessing et al. 2007, thereby engaging in long-term, ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism that continues today. Since H.K. Gjessing had been identified as the lead and corresponding author of NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007, Dr. Hutchon sent Gjessing a registered letter dated 26.07.2007, i.e. a copy of the letter Dr. Hutchon sent to "The Editor, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gyneacology" in which he sought a by-the-book investigation and redress of NCFM eSnurra Group's appropriation and plagiarism of his original idea and method' of PDEE, which NCFM eSnurra Group had claimed as their own original idea and method, published as Gjessing et al. 2007 on 08.06.2007 in UOG, 48-days before Dr. Hutchon's 26.07.2007 registered letter. Moreover, and specifically, NCFM eSnurra Group ignored Dr. Hutchon's 26.07.2007 registered letter. And, while H. K. Gjessing had acknowledged to Dr. Reynir Geirsson he had received Dr. Hutchon's letter, neither H. K. Gjessing nor any other NCFM eSnurra Group member has ever replied to Dr. Hutchon's 26.07.2007 letter, nor has any NCFM eSnurra Group member ever contacted, or communicated with, Dr. Hutchon. Moreover, and subsequent to Dr. Hutchon's 26.07.2007 letter, NCFM eSnurra Group members authored at least 15 additional publications based, entirely, on Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE, none of which gave attribution to Dr. Hutchon for his original idea and method of PDEE, thus engaging in what has become long-term, ongoing research misconduct via plagiarism. Again, Dr. Hutchon had formulated and published his original idea and method of PDEE, along with a demonstration using a dataset of both CRL and BPD in his seminal Hutchon 1998, 9-years before the publication of NCFM eSnurra Group's Gjessing et al. 2007 and 7-years before the publication of NCFM eSnurra Group's Eik-Nes et al. 2005.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!"
(Source: Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, 1808)

Standing on the Shoulders of Others
In 1675 Sir Isaac Newton penned a letter to Robert Hooke which included, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
(Source: Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Item: Letter from Sir Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke, Record Number: 9792, Collection: Simon Gratz collection [0250A], Box/Case: 12/11, Folder: 37, Correspondent: Newton, Isaac, 1642-1727, Hooke, Robert, Date of Original: February 5 1675) [Note 1: Wikipedia states: "The earliest attribution of the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants" is to Bernard ["a twelfth-century French Neo-Platonist philosopher, scholar, and administrator"] (by John of Salisbury): "Bernard of Chartres used to say that we [the Moderns] are like dwarves perched on the shoulders of giants [the Ancients], and thus we are able to see more and farther than the latter. And this is not at all because of the acuteness of our sight or the stature of our body, but because we are carried aloft and elevated by the magnitude of the giants.[5]" Reference: 5. Troyan, Scott D., Medieval Rhetoric: A Casebook, London, Routledge, 2004, p. 10."] [Note 2: The idea to include the excerpt from Wikipedia's entry of Bernard of Chartres is fully attributed to the Editorial by Fiona Godlee, Editor, BMJ: "On the shoulders of giants" BMJ. 2006 Sep 16; 333(7568): 0. PMCID: PMC1569982]

Attribution: The Ethical Etiquette
Proper attribution is the ethical etiquette for the privilege of standing on the shoulders of others, be they giants or otherwise. In this context, think of Dr.Hutchon as Boerhaave and NCFM eSnura Group as Naegele. And, while this is not exactly fair to Naegele given that Naegele referenced and quoted Boerhaaave with proper attribution, it serves to demonstrate the contrast between Naegele and NCFM eSnurra Group's behaviors relative to the ethical etiquette for the privilege of standing on the shoulders of others. Further, Thomas Baskett, in his book "On the Shoulders of Giants: Eponyms and Names in Obstetrics and Gynaecology" wrote, "Although commonly known as Naegele's rule, it was not formulated by Naegele, nor did he lay clam to it."

"It was Hermann Boerhaave (1668–1738), Professor of Botany and Medicine at Leyden University, who first set down the calculation from which Naegele's rule evolved." (Source: Baskett, T. F. and Nagele, F. (2000), Naegele's rule: a reappraisal. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 107: 1433–1435. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11661.x)
It was Dr. David J. R. Hutchon (1945– ), Doctor of Medicine at Memorial Hospital, Darlington, England, who, inspired by Boerhaave, first set down the idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation from which Norway's NCFM eSnurra Group plagiarized. (Source: D.J.R. Hutchon, F. Ahmed, CORRESPONDENCE Re: Naegele's rule: a reappraisal BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Volume 108, Issue 7, July 2001, Page 775) And, cited & referenced therein: Hutchon DJR. (1998) `Back to the Future' for Hermanni Boerhaave or `Arational way to generate ultrasound scan charts for estimating the dateof delivery'. OBGYN.net, 19 July, 1998: http://www.obgyn.net/obgyn-ultrasound/back-future-hermanni-boerhaave-or-rational-way-generate-ultrasound-scan-charts-estimating-date [Note: the since updated URL] )

NCFM eSnura Group has confused Newton's use of this time-honored metaphor among scientists with the practice of stepping and climbing upon others while, simultaneously, picking their intellectual pockets in order to gain unearned elevations. Specifically, NCFM eSnurra Group, via their Eik-Nes et al. 2005 publication, followed by their more significant Gjessing et al. 2007 paper, laid claim to Dr. Hutchon's original idea and method of Population-based Direct EDD Estimation (PDEE), knowingly, and, failed to acknowledge that the original idea and method of PDEE had been formulated by Dr. Hutchon and published, along with a demonstration of the method using a dataset of both CRL and BPD in his Hutchon 1998 9-years earlier. Today, this breach of ethical etiquette for the privilege of standing on the shoulders of others is known as research misconduct via plagiarism.

"Work from the minds of others must be acknowledged"

"Plagiarism is a serious and common form of misconduct in research and in other aspects of academia. The solution is simple in most cases – attribution. Obviously, attribution is not a solution when a student has plagiarized the work of others for an essay submitted as the student’s own. But for literature that is submitted to peer-reviewed periodicals, work from the minds of others must be acknowledged. It does not mean that it is improper to build on the work of others, just that the contribution of the originator be recognized and the original publication be referenced. "(Source: "Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and duplicate publication" Eldon R Smith, Editor-in-Chief, Canadian Journal of Cardiology v.23(2); 2007 Feb, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650652/)

The Impact Factor
Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 and other publications describing his original idea and method of PDEE were neither cited nor referenced by Sturla H. Eik-Nes nor by any other member of Norway's NCFM eSnurra Group in their 15+ publications based on the Hutchon Method of PDEE. Also, Dr. Hutchon's seminal Hutchon 1998 and other publications were neither cited nor referenced in Yves Ville's publications. Consequently, the professional reputation benefits for Dr. Hutchon's idea and method of PDEE were never realized by Dr. Hutchon because his original idea and method of PDEE had been appropriated and plagiarized by Sturla H. Eik-Nes et al. and Yves Ville et al. The significance of these professional reputation benefits were articulated by Roberto Romero, Editor, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology in his letter titled: "Excellence, innovation and impact factor of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology"

"The role of the impact factor as a bibliometric index is controversial, and other bibliometric indices have been developed to assess the quality of journals (e.g. Eigenfactor or the Article Influence Score) 1–10 or the influence of investigators (h-index) 3,4,11. However, the impact factor remains the standard measure by which journals are ranked today. Indeed, it is used by some universities and funding agencies as a criterion with which to assess suitability for academic promotion and funding." (Source: Editorial "Excellence, innovation and impact factor of Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology" Roberto Romero, Editor. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology Volume 36, Issue 3, 263–265. Version of Record online: 26 AUG 2010. DOI: 10.1002/uog.7763)