OBJECTIVE: Guidelines regarding prenatal screening for thyroid deficiency are conflicting, and current practice in primary care settings is unknown. Our survey sought to determine the: 1) extent of screening in Maine; 2) factors associated with screening; and 3) laboratory cut-off levels used. STUDY DESIGN: In 2004 we surveyed 61 prenatal care practices, representing 246 practitioners and 85% of Maine deliveries. RESULTS: Screening via thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) testing was routine in 48% of the practices. Obstetrician practices screened at a significantly higher rate than family practices (56% vs 8%; odds ratio [OR] 15.0, 95% CI 1.9-130.0). Nonsignificant higher rates were found for urban versus rural, and multipractitioner versus solo practices. The lower TSH cut-off levels ranged between 0.1 and 0.5 mU/L among practices; the upper cut-off levels ranged between 3.5 and 5.5 mU/L. CONCLUSION: Prenatal screening for thyroid deficiency varies among practices, reflecting conflicting guidelines. TSH cut-offs are also variable and might benefit from standardization.
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines regarding prenatal screening for thyroid deficiency are conflicting, and current practice in primary care settings is unknown. Our survey sought to determine the: 1) extent of screening in Maine; 2) factors associated with screening; and 3) laboratory cut-off levels used. STUDY DESIGN: In 2004 we surveyed 61 prenatal care practices, representing 246 practitioners and 85% of Maine deliveries. RESULTS: Screening via thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) testing was routine in 48% of the practices. Obstetrician practices screened at a significantly higher rate than family practices (56% vs 8%; odds ratio [OR] 15.0, 95% CI 1.9-130.0). Nonsignificant higher rates were found for urban versus rural, and multipractitioner versus solo practices. The lower TSH cut-off levels ranged between 0.1 and 0.5 mU/L among practices; the upper cut-off levels ranged between 3.5 and 5.5 mU/L. CONCLUSION: Prenatal screening for thyroid deficiency varies among practices, reflecting conflicting guidelines. TSH cut-offs are also variable and might benefit from standardization.
Authors: Briseis A Kilfoy; Susan S Devesa; Mary H Ward; Yawei Zhang; Philip S Rosenberg; Theodore R Holford; William F Anderson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Elizabeth N Pearce; Emily Oken; Matthew W Gillman; Stephanie L Lee; Barbarajean Magnani; Deborah Platek; Lewis E Braverman Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Tim I M Korevaar; Daan Nieboer; Peter H L T Bisschop; Mariette Goddijn; Marco Medici; Layal Chaker; Yolanda B de Rijke; Vincent W V Jaddoe; Theo J Visser; Ewout W Steyerberg; Henning Tiemeier; Tanja G Vrijkotte; Robin P Peeters Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: Beverley M Shields; Bridget A Knight; Anita V Hill; Andrew T Hattersley; Bijay Vaidya Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 5.958