Literature DB >> 16232170

Routine ultrasound screening and detection of congenital anomalies outside a university setting.

Jakob Nakling1, Bjørn Backe.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To assess the sensitivity for detecting fetal congenital anomalies by a routine ultrasound examination program at midtrimester performed in an unselected population by midwives and specialists in obstetrics and gynecology.
METHODS: Six hundred seventy-six of the pregnancies had the midtrimester ultrasound examinations performed outside the county. Three hundred seventeen of the women had midtrimester ultrasound examinations performed in the county, but delivered outside the county. A total of 18 181 pregnancies were eligible for the study.
RESULTS: Altogether there were 267 fetuses and newborns with anomalies, which gives a prevalence of 1.5%. One hundred three of the 267 anomalies were detected at the midtrimester ultrasound examination, yielding a sensitivity of 39.0%. There were 11 false positives and 163 remained undiagnosed (false negatives), which gives a specificity of 99.9% and a positive predictive value of 90.4%. The sensitivity for detecting anomalies ranged from 74.4 to 8.3% according to the organ system of the fetus.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that midtrimester routine ultrasound examination in district hospitals can achieve a detection rate of congenital anomalies comparable with tertiary centers. One-stage ultrasound examination at midtrimester gives acceptable results concerning congenital anomalies with few false-positive results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16232170     DOI: 10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00785.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  7 in total

1.  Frequency of foetal anomalies in a tertiary care centre.

Authors:  Rameswarapu Suman Babu; Sujatha Pasula
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2013-07-01

2.  Paternal Psychological Stress After Detection of Fetal Anomaly During Pregnancy. A Prospective Longitudinal Observational Study.

Authors:  Mona Bekkhus; Aurora Oftedal; Elizabeth Braithwaite; Guttorm Haugen; Anne Kaasen
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2020-07-29

3.  Early Detection of Structural Anomalies in a Primary Care Setting in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Francesca Bardi; Eric Smith; Maja Kuilman; Rosalinde J M Snijders; Caterina Maddalena Bilardo
Journal:  Fetal Diagn Ther       Date:  2018-07-25       Impact factor: 2.587

4.  Routine prenatal ultrasound anomaly screening program in a Nigerian university hospital: Redefining obstetrics practice in a developing African country.

Authors:  J A Akinmoladun; G I Ogbole; T A Lawal; O A Adesina
Journal:  Niger Med J       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug

5.  False positive morphologic diagnoses at the anomaly scan: marginal or real problem, a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Anne Debost-Legrand; Hélène Laurichesse-Delmas; Christine Francannet; Isabelle Perthus; Didier Lémery; Denis Gallot; Françoise Vendittelli
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2014-03-24       Impact factor: 3.007

6.  Age-specific global epidemiology of hydrocephalus: Systematic review, metanalysis and global birth surveillance.

Authors:  Albert M Isaacs; Jay Riva-Cambrin; Daniel Yavin; Aaron Hockley; Tamara M Pringsheim; Nathalie Jette; Brendan Cord Lethebe; Mark Lowerison; Jarred Dronyk; Mark G Hamilton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Additional value of advanced neurosonography and magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses at risk for brain damage.

Authors:  B J van der Knoop; I A Zonnenberg; J I M L Verbeke; L S de Vries; L R Pistorius; M M van Weissenbruch; R J Vermeulen; J I P de Vries
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 7.299

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.