Integrated, sequential, and contingent screening for Down syndrome - Local needs should drive methodology [3]

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 186-187

  Wyatt, Philip ^a  

^a Ontario Centres for Maternal Fetal Medicine   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANADA; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DOWN SYNDROME; FIRST TRIMESTER PREGNANCY; LETTER; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ULTRASOUND;

ADULT; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DOWN SYNDROME; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, FIRST; PREGNANCY TRIMESTER, SECOND; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 33847150435     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.1634     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Palomaki GE, Steinort K, Knight GJ, Haddow JE. 2006. Comparing three screening strategies for combining first- and second-trimester Down syndrome markers. Obstet Gynecol 107: 367-375.
2. Pandya P, Jones P, Huttly W, Rodeck C, Wald N. 2006. Integrated screening for down syndrome in routine clinical practice. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 28: 362-363.
3. Wald NJ, Rudnicka AR, Bestwick JP. 2006a. Sequential and contingent screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 26: 769-777.
4. Wald NJ, Rudnicka AR. 2006b. Antenatal screening for Down syndrome using the integrated test. In Prenatal Medicine, Van Vugt J, Shulman L (eds). Taylor and Francis, New York.
5. Wyatt PR, Meier C, Neveux L, Palomaki G. 2006. Retrospective Study of Contingency, 1st Trimester, and Integrated Tests. IDSSG: Amsterdam.