Screening for fetal abnormalities: From a health technology assessment report to a national statute

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 436-442

  Autti Rämö, Ilona ^a   Mäkelä, Marjukka ^b  

^a NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Chromosomal abnormalities; Fetus; Health policy; Malformation; Pregnancy; Prenatal; Screening

Indexed keywords

CHROMOSOMAL ABNORMALITIES; FETUS; HEALTH POLICY; MALFORMATION; PREGNANCY;

CHROMOSOMES; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; PUBLIC POLICY;

MEDICAL PROBLEMS;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; FETUS DISEASE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; PREGNANCY TERMINATION; SCREENING;

CHROMOSOME ABERRATIONS; CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES; FEMALE; FETUS; FINLAND; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; POLICY MAKING; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 35348928620     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462307070663     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Autti-Rämö I, Koskinen H, Mäkelä M, Ritvanen A, and working group. Maternal ultrasound and serum screening in the detection structural and chromosomal abnormalities (in Finnish). FinOHTA report 27. 2006. Available at: http://finohta.stakes.fi.
2. Autti-Rämö I, Mäkelä M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports. An eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:1-8.
3. Autti-Rämö I, Mäkelä M, Sintonen H, et al. Expanding screening for rare metabolic disease in the newborn: An analysis of costs, effect and ethical consequences for decision making in Finland. Acta Paediatr. 2005;94:1126-1136.
4. Bettelheim D, Kolinek B, Schaller A, Bernaschek G. Complication rates of invasive intrauterine procedures in a centre for prenatal diagnosis and therapy (In German). Ultraschall Med. 2002;23:119-122.
5. Bricker L, Garcia J, Henderson J, et al. Ultrasound screening in pregnancy: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and women's views. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1-193.
6. Connor JM, Ferguson-Smith MA. Essential medical genetics. 4th ed. Cambridge: The University Press; 1995.
7. Cuckle HS, Wald NJ, Lindenbaum RH. Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein measurement: A screening test for Down syndrome. Lancet. 1984;1:926-929.
8. Grandjean H, Larroque D, Levi S. Sensitivity of routine ultrasound screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus database. The Eurofetus Team. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1998;847:118-124.
9. Grandjean H, Larroque D, Levi S. The performance of routine ultrasound screening in the Eurofetus database. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:446-454.
10. Ritchie K, Boynton J, Bradbury I, et al. Routine ultrasound scanning before 24 week of pregnancy. Report No. 5. Glasgow: NHS Quality Improvement Scotland; 2004.
11. Terho A. Quality criteria and regional differences in trisomy screening in Finland. (In Finnish). Oulu: Oulun Yliopisto; 2002.
12. Wald NJ, Rodeck C, Hacshaw AK, Walters J, Chitty L, Mackinson A. First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down's syndrome: The results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1-88.