Feasibility of the second-trimester fetal ultrasound examination in an unselected population at 18, 20 or 22 weeks of pregnancy: A randomized trial

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 92-97

  Schwarzler P ^a   Senat, M V ^a   Holden, D ^a   Bernard, J P ^a   Masroor, T ^a   Ville, Y ^a,b  

^a ST GEORGE'S UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b CENTRE HOSPITALIER INTERCOMMUNAL   (France)

Author keywords

Fetal anomaly scan; Prenatal diagnosis; Second trimester of pregnancy; Ultrasound screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER; DOPPLER FLOWMETRY; FEMALE; FETUS; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; FETUS MALFORMATION; FETUS MOVEMENT; FETUS OUTCOME; GESTATIONAL AGE; HEART; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PLACENTA LOCALIZATION; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK FACTOR; SECOND TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; SKELETON; SPINE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; THORAX; UTERINE ARTERY; UTERUS MYOMA; WAVEFORM;

ADULT; BLOOD FLOW VELOCITY; ENDOSONOGRAPHY; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; FETAL DISEASES; FETUS; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; PATIENT SELECTION; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, SECOND; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, DOPPLER; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL; UTERUS; VAGINA;

EID: 0032880814     PISSN: 09607692     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14020092.x     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Snijders RJM, Noble P, Sebire N, Souka A, Nicolaides KH. UK multicentre project on assessment of risk of trisomy 21 by maternal age and fetal nuchal translucency thickness at 10-14 weeks of gestation. Lancet 1998;351:343-6
2. Souka AP, Nicolaides KH. Diagnosis of fetal abnormalities at the 10-14 weeks scan, Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10:429-42
3. 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;336:387-91
4. Bucher HC, Schmidt JG. Does routine ultrasound scanning improve outcome in pregnancy? Meta-analysis of various outcome measures. Br Med J 1993;307:13-17
5. Luck CA. Value of routine ultrasound scanning at 19 weeks: a four year study of 8849 deliveries. Br Med J 1992;304:1474-8
6. Shirley IM, Bottomley F, Robinson VP. Routine radiographer screening for fetal abnormalities by ultrasound in an unselected low risk population. Br J Radiol 1992;65:564-9
7. Rosendahl HKS. Antenatal detection of congenital malformations by routine ultrasonography. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73:947-51
8. Chitty LS, Hunt GH, Moore J, Lobb MO. Effectiveness of routine ultrasonography in detecting fetal structural abnormalities in a low risk population. Br Med J 1991;303:1165-9
9. Levi S, Hyjaz Y, Schaaps JP, Defoort P, Coulon R, Bueckens P. Sensitivity and specificity of routine antenatal screening for congenital anomalies by ultrasound: the Belgian Multicentric Study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1991;1:102-10
10. Chescheir NC, Reitnauer PJ. A comparative study of prenatal diagnosis and perinatal autopsy. J Ultrasnund Med 1994;13:451-6
11. Manchester DK, Pretorius DH, Avery C. Accuracy of ultrasound diagnosis in pregnancies complicated by suspected fetal anomalies. Prenat Diagn 1988;8:109-17
12. Harrington K, Cooper D, Lees C, Hecher K, Campbell S. Doppler ultrasound of the uterine arteries: the importance of bilateral notching in the prediction of pre-eclampsia, placental abruption or delivery of a small-for-gestational-age baby. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;7:182-8
13. Nyberg DA, Dubinski T, Resta RG, Mahoney BS, Luthy DA, Hickok DE, Sorenson T. Echogenic fetal bowel: clinical importance. Radiology 1993;188:527-31
14. Campbell AS, Warsof SL, Little D, Cooper DJ. Routine ultrasound screening for prediction of gestational age. Obstet Gynecol 1985;65:613-20
15. Harding K, Evans S, Newnbam J. Screening for the small fetus: a study of the relative efficacies of ultrasound biometry and symphysiofundal height. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;35:160-4
16. Grennerr L, Persson P-H, Gennser G. Benefits of ultrasonic screening of a pregnant population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1978;78:5
17. Hansmann M. Ultrasound in pregnancy. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 1981;41:725-8
18. Backe B, Nafstad P, Saetnan AR. Reduced use of diagnostic obstetric ultrasound in Norway. Result of consensus panel recommending routine screening in pregnancy? Acta Obstet Gynecol Stand 1990;69:649-50
19. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Working Party. Routine Ultrasound Examination in Pregnancy. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 1984
20. Ewigman BG, Crane JP, Frigoletto FD, Le Fevre MI, Bain RP, McNellis D. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. RADIUS Study Group. N Engl J Med 1993;329:821-7
21. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Ultrasonography in Pregnancy. Technical Bulletin No. 187. ACOG: 1993
22. Berkowitz R. Should every pregnant women undergo ultrasonography? N. Engl J Med 1993;329:874-5
23. De Vore GR. The Routine Antenatal Diagnostic Imaging with Ultrasound Study: another perspective. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:622-6
24. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Working Party. Survey on the Use of Obstetric Ultrasound in the UK. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 1997
25. Campbell S. The obstetric ultrasound examination. In Chervenak FA, Isaacson GC, Campbell S, eds. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Boston: Little, Brown, 1993:187-98