Miscarriage after invasive prenatal diagnostic procedures: How much risk our pregnant women are willing to take?

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 29, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 870-874

  Chan, Yiu Man ^a   Sahota, Daljit Singh ^a   Chan, Oi Ka ^a   Leung, Tak Yeung ^a   Lau, Tze Kin ^a  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Chinese; Preferences; Prenatal diagnosis tests; Standard gamble metrics

Indexed keywords

ABORTION; ADULT; ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; CHINESE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OBSTETRICS; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRENATAL SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SCREENING TEST; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION;

ABORTION, SPONTANEOUS; ADULT; CHINA; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANT WOMEN; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; RISK-TAKING; SOCIAL CLASS;

EID: 69749124067     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.2305     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins. 2007. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 77: screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol 109: 217-227.
2. Caughey AB, Washington AE, Gildengorin V, Kuppermann M. 2004. Assessment of demand for prenatal diagnostic testing using willingness to pay. Obstet Gynecol 103: 539-545. (Pubitemid 40459071)
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1995. Chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis: recommendations for prenatal counseling. MMWR Recomm Rep 44: 1-12.
4. Chan YM, Leung TN, Leung TY, Fung TY, Chan LW, Lau TK. 2006. The utility assessment of Chinese pregnant women towards the birth of a baby with Down syndrome compared to a procedure-related miscarriage. Prenat Diagn 26: 819-824.
5. Driscoll DA, Gross SJ. 2008. Professional Practice and Guidelines Committee. First trimester diagnosis and screening for fetal aneuploidy. Genet Med 10: 73-75.
6. Froberg DG, Kane RL. 1989. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences. J Clin Epidemiol 42: 459-471.
7. Grobman WA, Dooley SL, Welshman EE, Pergament E, Calhoun EA. 2002. Preference assessment of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome: is 35 years a rational cutoff? Prenat Diagn 22: 1195-1200. (Pubitemid 36043168)
8. Kong CW, Leung TN, Leung TY, et al. 2006. Risk factors for procedure-related fetal losses after mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis. Prenat Diagn 26: 925-930.
9. Kuppermann M, Goldberg JD, Nease RF, Washington AE. 1999. Who should be offered prenatal diagnosis? The 35-year old question. Am J Public Health 89: 160-163. (Pubitemid 29282790)
10. Kuppermann M, Nease RF, Learman LA, Gates E, Blumberg B, Washington AE. 2000. Procedure-related miscarriages and Down syndrome-affected births: implications for prenatal testing based on women's preferences. Obstet Gynecol 96: 511-516.
11. Lee DT, Sahota D, Leung TN, Yip AS, Lee FF, Chung TK. 2006. Psychological responses of pregnant women to an infectious outbreak: a case-control study of the 2003 SARS outbreak in Hong Kong. J Psychosom Res 61(5): 707-713. (Pubitemid 44647276)
12. Leung TY, Leung TY, Chan LW, et al. 2008. First trimester combined screening for Trisomy 21 in Hong Kong: outcome of the first 10,000 cases. Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 13: 1-5.
13. Mujezinovic F, Alfirevic Z. 2007. Procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 110: 687-694. (Pubitemid 47359597)
14. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). 2008. Antenatal care: routine care for healthy pregnant woman NICE Clinical Guideline 62, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): London.
15. Seeds JW. 2004. Diagnostic mid trimester amniocentesis: how safe?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191: 607-615.
16. Tabor A, Philip J, Madsen M, Bang J, Obel EB, Norgaard-Pedersen B. 1986. Randomised controlled trial of genetic amniocentesis in 4606 low-risk women. Lancet 1(8493): 1287-1293. (Pubitemid 16114047)
17. Wilson RD, Langlois S, Johnson JA; Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. 2007. Mid-trimester amniocentesis fetal loss rate. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 29: 586-595.