Routine ultrasound screening in pregnancy and the children’s subsequent neurologic development

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 91, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 750-756

  Kieler, Helle ^a,b,c   Ahlsten, Gunnar ^a,b,c   Haglund, Bengt ^a,b,c   Salvesen, Kjell ^a,b,c   Axelsson, Ove ^a,b,c  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b CENTRE FOR EPIDEMIOLOGY   (Sweden)

^c NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAIN DEVELOPMENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; PREGNANCY COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SPEECH DEVELOPMENT; SWEDEN; ULTRASOUND;

CHILD; CHILD BEHAVIOR DISORDERS; DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; MALE; MOTOR SKILLS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL EXPOSURE DELAYED EFFECTS; QUESTIONNAIRES; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL;

EID: 0031958852     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: 1873233X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00062-3     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Mole R. Possible hazards of imaging and Doppler ultrasound in obstetrics. Birth 1986;13:29-37.
2. Cunningham FG, MacDonald PC, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC III, Hankins GDV, et al. Williams obstetrics. 20th ed. Stamford, Connecticut: Appleton & Lange, 1997.
3. Conners KC. Psychological assessment of children with minimal brain dysfunction. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1973:205:283-302.
4. Larsson JO, Aurelius G, Nordberg L, Rydelius PA, Zetterstro¨m R. Screening for minimal brain dysfunction (MBD/DAMP) at six years of age: Results of motor tests in relation to perinatal conditions, development and family situation. Acta Paediatr 1995; 84:30-36.
5. Dinno MA, Dyson M, Young SR, Mortimer AJ, Hart J, Crum LA. The significance of membrane changes in the safe and effective use of therapeutic and diagnostic ultrasound. Phys Med Biol 1989;34: 1543-1552.
6. Reece EA, Assimakopoulos E, Zheng XZ, Hagay Z, Hobbins JC. The safety of obstetric ultrasonography: Concern for the fetus. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:139-146.
7. Scheidt PC, Stanley F, Bryla DA. One-year follow-up of infants exposed to ultrasound in utero. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978;131: 743-748.
8. Stark CR, Orleans M, Haverkamp AD, Murphy J. Short-and long-term risks after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in utero. Obstet Gynecol 1984;63:194-200.
9. Campbell JD, Elford RW, Brant RF. Case-control study of prenatal ultrasonography exposure in children with delayed speech. Can Med Assoc J 1993;149:1435-1440.
10. Salvesen KÅ, Vatten LJ, Eik-Nes SH, Hugdahl K, Bakketeig LS. Routine ultrasonography in utero and subsequent handedness and neurologic development. BMJ 1993;307:159-164.
11. Kieler H, Haglund B, Nilsson S, Salvesen KÅ, Axelsson O. Routine ultrasound screening in pregnancy and the children's subsequent handedness. Early Hum Dev 1998;50:233-245.
12. Salvesen KÅ, Vatten LJ, Bakketeig LS, Eik-Nes SH. Routine ultrasonography in utero and speech development. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1994;4:101-103.
13. Salvesen KÅ, Eik-Nes SH. Is ultrasound unsound? A review of epidemiological studies of human exposure to ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;6:293-298.
14. European Committee for Ultrasound Radiation Safety. Epidemiology of diagnostic ultrasound exposure during human pregnancy. Eur J Ultrasound 1996;4:69-73.
15. Waldenström U, Axelsson O, Nilsson S, Eklund G, Fall O, Lindeberg S, et al. Effects of routine one-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: A randomized controlled trial. Lancet 1988;2:585-588.
16. Geschwind N, Galaburda AM. Cerebral lateralization. Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology: I. A hypothesis and a program for research. Arch Neurol 1985;42:428-459.
17. Hindley CB, Filliozat AM, Klackenberg G, Nicolet-Meister D, Sand EA. Differences in age of walking in five European longitudinal samples. Hum Biol 1966;38:364-379.
18. Capute AJ, Shapiro BK, Palmer FB, Wachtel RC. Normal gross motor development: The influences of race, sex and socioeconomic status. Dev Med Child Neur 1985;27:635-643.
19. Robinson R. Causes and associations of severe and persistent specific speech and language disorders in children. Dev Med Child Neur 1991;33:943-962.
20. Conners CK. Rating scales for use in drug studies with children. Psychopharmacol Bull 1973;9:24-29,55,60.
21. Siemiatycki J, Campbell S. Nonresponse bias and early versus all responders in mail and telephone surveys. Am J Epidemiol 1984; 120:291-301.
22. Barton J, Bain C, Hennekens CH, Rosner B, Belanger C, Roth A, et al. Characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents to a mailed questionnaire. Am J Public Health 1980;70:823-825.
23. Makin J, Fried PA, Watkinson B. A comparison of active and passive smoking during pregnancy: Long-term effects. Neurotoxicol Teratol 1991;13:5-12.
24. McMahon RJ. Behavioral checklists and rating scales. In: Ollendick TH, Hersen M, eds. Child behavioral assessment: Principles and procedures. New York: Pergamon Press, 1984:80-105.
25. Butler N, Peckham C, Sheridan M. Speech defects in children aged 7 years: A national study. BMJ 1973;3:253-257.
26. Carlsson G, Hugdahl K, Uvebrant P, Wiklund L-M, von Wendt L. Pathological left-handedness revisited: Dichotic listening in children with left vs right congenital hemiplegia. Neuropsychologia 1992;30:471-481.
27. Henderson J, Willson K, Jago JR, Whittingham TA. A survey of the acoustic outputs of diagnostic ultrasound equipment in current clinical use. Ultrasound Med Biol 1995;21:699-705.
28. O'Brien WD. Safety of ultrasound with selective emphasis for obstetrics. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1984;5:105-120.