Abstract
Our goal was to develop a framework for evaluating the current controversy regarding routine obstetric ultrasonography in a population of low-risk pregnancies. A retrospective chart review was performed for all low-risk pregnancies from a single obstetric practice during 1990 to 1994, to determine the accuracy of screening ultrasonography for fetal anomalies. All patients received a routine ultrasonographic examination at 18 to 20 weeks' gestation. Neonatal records for all patients were evaluated for the presence of both major and minor anomalies. The data were analyzed with attention to the classification of anomalies (all anomalies vs major anomalies, detectable vs nondetectable). A total of 860 fetuses in 854 pregnancies were evaluated. Anomalies were present in 5.35% (46/860); these were major anomalies in 1.16% (10/860) and minor anomalies in 4.19% (36/860). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the diagnosis of all anomalies were 8.7%, 99.9%, 80%, and 95.7%, respectively. However, if only major anomalies detectable by ultrasonography are included, these values become 75%, 100%, 100%, and 99.9%, respectively. There was one false-positive diagnosis not affecting outcome, a small ventr...Continue Reading
References
Jul 1, 1992·The British Journal of Radiology·I M ShirleyV P Robinson
Jun 6, 1992·BMJ : British Medical Journal·C A Luck
Nov 9, 1991·BMJ : British Medical Journal·L S ChittyM O Lobb
Jun 1, 1989·Obstetrics and Gynecology·H Rosendahl, S Kivenen
Oct 1, 1989·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology·F A ChervenakJ L Chervenak
Dec 1, 1994·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology·L F GonçalvesJ M Piper
Aug 1, 1994·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology·J P CraneD McNellis
Mar 1, 1991·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology : the Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology·S LeviP Buekens
Sep 1, 1993·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology : the Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology·R Romero
Citations
Jul 21, 1998·Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences·D W Skupski
Jan 5, 2002·Annales de génétique·C StollM P Roth
Aug 19, 2009·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology : the Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology·G RomosanL Valentin
Nov 24, 2006·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology : the Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology·A KaasenG Haugen
Aug 24, 2010·Prenatal Diagnosis·N Neely KazerouniMarie Roberson
Nov 25, 1997·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology·D R BryantH M Wolfe
Oct 7, 2004·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology·Robin B KalishFrank A Chervenak
Aug 24, 1999·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology·H GrandjeanS Levi
Nov 18, 2003·Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica·Ann TaborBeth Lilja Pedersen
Jan 10, 2002·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology : the Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology·I BarisicUNKNOWN Euroscan Study Group
May 1, 2002·Prenatal Diagnosis·Salvator Levi
Jul 9, 2020·The Journal of Maternal-fetal & Neonatal Medicine : the Official Journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians·Lami Yeo, Roberto Romero
Oct 26, 2000·The Journal of Maternal-fetal Medicine·D Ogunyemi, S Buskye
Sep 24, 2004·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology : the Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology·H MaulC Sohn