This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Zhang, T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Sonographic Screening Examinations in Pregnancy

Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

There is no consistent evidence of risk caused by sonographic examinations—neither biologic risk for the fetus nor increased use of health services as a result of ascertained conditions. There is also no consistent benefit to routine sonography in terms of important health outcomes. The use of fetal sonography to screen for anomalies reveals evidence that raises substantial concerns regarding interobserver variability. This might be expected when using a test for screening that requires considerable skill. The range of reported sensitivities underscores the disadvantages of performing sonography on a routine basis rather than on selected patients. Pretest counseling may identify a subset of women for whom screening may be effective in improving health outcomes.

Key Words: sonography • pregnancy • screening • anomaly • fetus

References

• 1. Saari-Kemppainen A, Karjalainen O, Ylostalo P, Heinonen OP: Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: Controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancy. The Helsinki Ultrasound Trial. Lancet 1990, Aug 18;336(8712):387-391.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• 2. Crane JP, Lefevre ML, Winborn RC, et al: A randomized trial of prenatal ultrasonic screening: impact on the detection, management, and outcome of anomalous fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171:392-399.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• 3. Van Dorsten JP, Hulsey TC, Newman RB, Menard MK: Fetal anomaly detection by second-trimester ultrasound in a tertiary center. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:742-749.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• 4. Seeds JW, et al: The routine or screening obstetrical ultra-sound examination. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1999;39:814-829.[CrossRef]
• 5. Dooley SL: Routine ultrasound in pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1999;42:737-748.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• 6. Keiler H, Ahlsten G, Haglund B, Salvesen K, Axelsson O: Routine ultrasound screening in pregnancy and the children's subsequent neurologic development. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;74:12-14.
• 7. Salvesen KA, Bakketeig LS, Eik-Nes SH, et al: Effects of routine ultrasonography in inutero and school performance at age 8-9 years. Lancet 1992;239:85-89.

Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, Vol. 19, No. 4, 224-228 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/8756479303252897


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Zhang, T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?