Routine Ultrasound in Pregnancy

Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 882-889

  Raynor, B Denise ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIRTH DEFECT; CONFERENCE PAPER; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; FETUS; FETUS MALFORMATION; HIGH RISK PREGNANCY; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TERMINATION; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASOUND;

DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; FEMALE; FETAL DISEASES; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0242426472     PISSN: 00099201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00003081-200312000-00020     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Stephens MB, Montefalcon R, Lane DA. The maternal perspective of prenatal ultrasound. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:601-604.
2. Buechler EJ. Managed care and ultrasound for the diagnosis of fetal anomalies. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1998;847:181-184.
3. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists. Routine ultrasound in low-risk pregnancy. ACOG Practice Patterns No. 5. Washington, DC: ACOG, 1997.
4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Resource Center. http: //www.acog.net/departments/resourcecenter. Accessed January 14, 2003.
5. Benn PA, Rodis JF, Beazoglou T. Cost-effectiveness of estimating gestational age by ultrasonography in Down syndrome screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:29-33.
6. Neilson JP. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Library 2002; Issue 4.
7. Ewigman BG, Crane JP, Frigoletto FD, et al. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. NEJM. 1993;329:821-827.
8. Saari-Kemppainen A, Karjalainen O, Ylostalo P, et al. Fetal anomalies in a controlled one-stage ultrasound screening trial. A report from the Helsinki Ultrasound Trial. J Perinat Med. 1994;22:279-289.
9. Grandjean H, Larroque D, Levi S, and the Eurofetus team. The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:446-454.
10. Levi S, Hyjazi Y, Schaaps JP, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of routine antenatal screening for congenital anomalies by ultrasound: the Belgian Multricentric Study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1991;1:102-110.
11. Baroniciani D, Scaglia C, Corchis C, et al. Ultrasonography in pregnancy and fetal abnormalities: screening or diagnostic test? IPIMC 1986-1990 register data. Prenat Diagn. 1995;15:1101-1108.
12. Anderson N, Boswell O, Duff G. Prenatal sonography for the detection of fetal anomalies: results of a prospeective study and comparison with prior series. Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:943-950.
13. Boyd PA, Chamberlain P, Hicks NR. 6-year experience of prenatal diagnosis in an unselected population in Oxford UK. Lancet. 1998;352:1577-1581.
14. Levi S. Ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis: polemics around routine ultrasound screening for second trimester fetal malformations. Prenat Diagn. 2002;22:285-295.
15. Luck CA. Value of routine ultrasound scanning at 19 weeks: a four year study of 8849 deliveries. Br Med J. 1992;304:1474
16. Campbell S, Pearce JM. Ultrasound visualization congenital malformations. Br Med Bull. 1983;39:322-331.
17. Crane JP, Lefevre ML, Winborn RC, et al. RADIUS study group. A randomized trial of prenatal ultrasonographic screening: impact on the detection, management, and outcome of anomalous fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171:392-399.
18. Smith-Bindman R, Hosmer WD, Caponigro M, et al. The variability in the interpretation of prenatal diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;17:326-332.
19. Gotoh H, Masuzaki H, Fukuda H, et al. Detection and assessment of pyelectasis in the fetus: relationship to postnatal renal function. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:226-231.
20. Saari-Kemppainen A, Karajalainen O, Ylostalo P, et al. Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial of systematic one-state screening in pregnancy. The Helsinki Ultrasound Trial. Lancet. 1990;336:387-391.
21. James CA, Watson AR, Twining P, et al. Antenatally detected urinary tract abnormalities: changing incidence and management. Eur J Pediatr. 1998;157:508-511.
22. Vintzileos AM, Ananth CV, Smulian JC, et al. Routine second-trimester ultrasonogphy in the United States: a cost-benefit analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182:655-660.
23. DeVore GR. The routine antenatal diagnostic imaging with ultrasound study: another perspective. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84:622-626.
24. Roberts T, Mungford M, Piercy J. Choosing options for ultrasound screening in pregnancy and comparing cost effectiveness: a decision analysis approach. Br J Obstet Gynaec. 1998;105:960-970.
25. Roberts T, Henderson J, Mugford M, et al, Garcia. Antenatal ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities: a systematic review of studies of cost and cost effectiveness. Br J Obstet Gynaec. 2002;108:44-56.
26. Waitzman NJ, Romano PS. Reduced costs of congenital anomalies from fetal ultrasound: are they sufficient to justify routine screening in the United States? N Y Acad Sci. 1998;847:141-153.
27. Chervenak FA, McCullough LB. Ethical Dimensions of ultrasound screening for fetal anomalies. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1998;847:185-189.