Literature DB >> 21536809

Monitoring the prenatal detection of structural fetal congenital anomalies in England and Wales: register-based study.

Patricia A Boyd1, Ann M Tonks, Judith Rankin, Catherine Rounding, Diana Wellesley, Elizabeth S Draper.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To provide current population-based prevalence and prenatal diagnosis rates (PND) for specified major congenital anomalies in England and Wales to enable monitoring of the Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme (FASP).
DESIGN: Secondary analysis of prospectively collected registry data.
SETTING: Seven multiple-source, population-based congenital anomaly registers, members of the British Isles Network of Congenital Anomaly Registers (BINOCAR) in 2005 and 2006. POPULATION: 2,883 births with congenital anomalies from a total of 601,545 live and stillbirths. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PND and birth prevalence of selected congenital anomaly groups/subtypes (anencephaly, spina-bifida, serious cardiac, diaphragmatic hernia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, bilateral renal agenesis, lethal/severe skeletal dysplasia, cleft lip with or without cleft palate [CL + /- P]).
RESULTS: Of the selected anomaly groups, the most frequently reported were serious cardiac (14.1 per 10,000 births [95% CI 13.0-15.2]) and CL + /- P (9.7 per 10,000 births [8.9-10.5]); the least frequent were bilateral renal agenesis and lethal/severe skeletal dysplasia (< 1.5 per 10,000 births). The PND varied for different anomalies from 53.1% (95% CI 43.5-65.2) for serious cardiac anomalies to 99.6% (95% CI 97.9-100.0) for anencephaly. Least variation in PND rates was for anencephaly (range 98.9-100%) and gastroschisis (93.5-100%); greatest variation was for serious cardiac (43.5-65.2%) and lethal/severe skeletal dysplasias (50.0-100%).
CONCLUSIONS: BINOCAR registers can, uniquely, provide contemporary data on PND and birth prevalence rates to enable monitoring of the ultrasound component of FASP at a national and regional level, allowing comparisons between populations to be made, planning of resources facilitated and assistance for parents making informed decisions on whether to enter the screening programme.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21536809     DOI: 10.1258/jms.2011.010139

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  12 in total

1.  Adaptive Leadership in Parents Caring for their Children Born with Life-Threatening Conditions.

Authors:  Anne C McKechnie; Kathy A Johnson; Maureen J Baker; Sharron L Docherty; Steven R Leuthner; Suzanne Thoyre
Journal:  J Pediatr Nurs       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 2.145

2.  Optimising Exome Prenatal Sequencing Services (EXPRESS): a study protocol to evaluate rapid prenatal exome sequencing in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].

Authors:  Melissa Hill; Sian Ellard; Jane Fisher; Naomi Fulop; Marian Knight; Mark Kroese; Jean Ledger; Kerry Leeson-Beevers; Alec McEwan; Dominic McMullan; Rhiannon Mellis; Stephen Morris; Michael Parker; Dagmar Tapon; Emma Baple; Laura Blackburn; Asya Choudry; Caroline Lafarge; Hannah McInnes-Dean; Michelle Peter; Rema Ramakrishnan; Lauren Roberts; Beverly Searle; Emma Smith; Holly Walton; Sarah L Wynn; Wing Han Wu; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  NIHR Open Res       Date:  2022-07-18

3.  Variation in Prenatal Diagnosis of Congenital Heart Disease in Infants.

Authors:  Michael D Quartermain; Sara K Pasquali; Kevin D Hill; David J Goldberg; James C Huhta; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Marshall L Jacobs; Sunghee Kim; Ross M Ungerleider
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 4.  Promises, pitfalls and practicalities of prenatal whole exome sequencing.

Authors:  Sunayna Best; Karen Wou; Neeta Vora; Ignatia B Van der Veyver; Ronald Wapner; Lyn S Chitty
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 3.050

5.  Diagnostic assessment of foetal brain malformations with intra-uterine MRI versus perinatal post-mortem MRI.

Authors:  Stacy K Goergen; Ekaterina Alibrahim; Nishentha Govender; Alexandra Stanislavsky; Christian Abel; Stacey Prystupa; Jacquelene Collett; Susan C Shelmerdine; Owen J Arthurs
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2019-05-10       Impact factor: 2.804

6.  Fetal Organ Anomaly Classification Network for Identifying Organ Anomalies in Fetal MRI.

Authors:  Justin Lo; Adam Lim; Matthias W Wagner; Birgit Ertl-Wagner; Dafna Sussman
Journal:  Front Artif Intell       Date:  2022-03-18

7.  Congenital lung malformations: an ongoing controversy.

Authors:  R T Peters; D M Burge; S S Marven
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.891

8.  Couples experiences of receiving uncertain results following prenatal microarray or exome sequencing: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Authors:  Eleanor Harding; Jennifer Hammond; Lyn S Chitty; Melissa Hill; Celine Lewis
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2020-05-24       Impact factor: 3.242

9.  Parental experiences of uncertainty following an abnormal fetal anomaly scan: Insights using Han's taxonomy of uncertainty.

Authors:  Jennifer Hammond; Jasmijn E Klapwijk; Melissa Hill; Stina Lou; Kelly E Ormond; Karin E M Diderich; Sam Riedijk; Celine Lewis
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 2.717

Review 10.  The role of next-generation sequencing in the investigation of ultrasound-identified fetal structural anomalies.

Authors:  M D Kilby
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 7.331

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.