Aiming at multidisciplinary consensus: What should be detected in prenatal diagnosis?

Prenatal Diagnosis

Volumn 30, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 1049-1056

  Boormans, Elisabeth M A ^a   Birnie, E ^b   Knegt, A C ^a   Schuring Blom, G Heleen ^c   Bonsel, Gouke J ^d   Van Lith, Jan M M ^e  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^d ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^e LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Karyotyping; Nominal group technique; Prenatal diagnosis; Rapid aneuploidy detection; Targeted testing

Indexed keywords

ANEUPLOIDY; ARTICLE; CHROMOSOME ABERRATION; MATERNAL AGE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM;

CHROMOSOME ABERRATIONS; CONSENSUS; FEMALE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 77958612193     PISSN: 01973851     EISSN: 10970223     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pd.2609     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Boormans EM, Birnie E, Oepkes D, Galjaard RJ, Schuring-Blom GH, van Lith JMM. 2010. Comparison of multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 115: 297-303.
2. Boormans EM, Birnie E, Wildschut HI, et al. 2008. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification versus karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: the MA.K.E. study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 8: 18.
3. Bui TH. 2007. Prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis: gone FISHing, BAC soon!. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30: 247-251.
4. Caine A, Maltby AE, Parkin CA, Waters JJ, Crolla JA. 2005. Prenatal detection of Down's syndrome by rapid aneuploidy testing for chromosomes 13, 18, and 21 by FISH or PCR without a full karyotype: a cytogenetic risk assessment. Lancet 366: 123-8.
5. Cirigliano V, Voglino G, Ordoñez E, et al. 2009. Rapid prenatal diagnosis of common chromosome aneuploidies by QF-PCR, results of 9 years of clinical experience. Prenat Diagn 29: 40-9.
6. Delbecq A, Van de Ven A. 1971. A group process model for problem identification and program planning. J Appl Behav Sci 7: 467-492.
7. Grimshaw GM, Szczepura A, Hultén M, et al. 2003. Evaluation of Molecular tests for prenatal diagnosis of chromosome abnormalities. Health Technol Assess 7: 1-146.
8. Jones J, Hunter D. 1995. Qualitative research: consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311: 376-80.
9. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. 2008. Feasibility and reliability of the annual profile method for deriving QALYs for short-term health conditions. Med Decis Making 28: 500-510.
10. Landis JR, Koch G. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159-174.
11. Leung WC, Lao ET, Lau WL, et al. 2008. Rapid aneuploidy testing (knowing less) versus traditional karyotyping (knowing more) for advanced maternal age: what would be missed, who should decide?. Hong Kong Med J 14: 6-13.
12. Raine R, Sanderson C, Hutchings A, Carter S, Larkin K, Black N. 2004. An experimental study of determinants of group judgments in clinical guideline development. Lancet 6: 392-393.
13. Thompson T, Barbour R, Schwartz L. 2003. Adherence to advance directives in critical care decision making: vignette study. BMJ 327: 1011.
14. Wapner R, Jackson L. 2008. Chromosomal microarray analysis for prenatal diagnosis: a prospective comparison with conventional cytogenetics. Prenat Diagn 28: S1-576.
15. Wertz DC, Fletcher JC, Nippert I, Wolff G, Ayme S. 2002. In focus. Has patient autonomy gone too far? Geneticists' views in 36 nations. Am J Bioeth 2: W21.