Pregnancy Outcomes After Prenatal Diagnosis of Aneuploidy

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 97, Issue 5, 2001, Pages 729-733

  Ralston, Steven J ^a   Wertz, Dorothy ^a   Chelmow, David ^b   Craigo, Sabrina D ^b   Bianchi, Diana W ^b  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONGENITAL MALFORMATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FETUS; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NEWBORN; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PROBABILITY; QUESTIONNAIRE; REFERENCE VALUE; STATISTICS; THERAPEUTIC ABORTION;

ABORTION, THERAPEUTIC; ADULT; ANEUPLOIDY; COHORT STUDIES; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FETUS; GENETIC COUNSELING; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PROBABILITY; QUESTIONNAIRES; REFERENCE VALUES;

EID: 0035344507     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: 1873233X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00006250-200105000-00017     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Markens S, Browner CH, Press N. 'Because of the risks': How US pregnant women account for refusing prenatal screening. Soc Sci Med 1999;49:359-69.
2. Kumar RK, Newburger JW, Gauvreau K, Kamenir SA, Hornberger LK. Comparison of outcome when hypoplastic left heart syndrome and transposition of the great arteries are diagnosed prenatally versus when diagnosis of these two conditions is made only postnatally. Am J Cardiol 1999;83:1649-53.
3. Bonnet D, Coltri A, Butera G, Fermont L, Le Bidois J, Kachaner J, et al. Detection of transposition of the great arteries in fetuses reduces neonatal morbidity and mortality. Circulation 1999;99:916-8.
4. Simpson LL, Harvey-Wilkes K, D'Alton ME. Congenital heart disease: The impact of delivery in a tertiary care center on SNAP scores (scores for neonatal acute physiology). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:184-91.
5. Saxton M. Disability rights and selective abortion. In: Solinger R, ed. Abortion wars: A half century of struggle, 1950-2000. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997:374-95.
6. Asch A. Reproductive technology and disability. In: Cohen S, Taub N, eds. Reproductive laws for the 1990s. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press, 1989:69-124.
7. Parens E, Asch A. The disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing. Reflections and recommendations. Hastings Cent Rep 1999;29:S1-22.
8. Mansfield C, Hopfer S, Marteau TM. Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: A systemic literature review. Prenat Diagn 1999;19:808-12.
9. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE Jr. The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Medical Care 1988;26:724-35.
10. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
11. Luria RE. The validity and reliability of the visual analogue mood scale. J Psychiat Res 1975;12:51-7.
12. Drugan A, Greb A, Johnson MP, Krivchenia EL, Uhlmann WR, Moghissi KS, et al. Determinants of parental decisions to abort for chromosomal abnormalities. Prenat Diagn 1990;10:483-90.
13. Berwick DM, Murphy JM, Goldman PA, Ware JE Jr, Barsky AJ, Weinstein MC. Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Medical Care 1991;29:169-76.
14. Press N, Browner CH. Characteristics of women who refuse an offer of prenatal diagnosis: Data from the California maternal serum alpha fetoprotein blood test experience. Am J Med Genet 1998;78:433-45.
15. Campbell MJ, Waters WE. Does anonymity increase response rate in postal questionnaire surveys about sensitive subjects? A randomised trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 1990;44:75-6.