-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: ultrasound prenasal thickness From: mark decker (mhdmd@wi.rr.com) Wed Aug 22 10:39:48 2007 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: mark decker: "Re: Medicare Says It Won't Cover Hospital Errors" Previous message: Henry Gregor: "Re: ultrasound prenasal thickness" In reply to: Henry Gregor: "Re: ultrasound prenasal thickness" Next in thread: art fougner, md: "Re: ultrasound prenasal thickness" Reply: art fougner, md: "Re: ultrasound prenasal thickness" i figured there was a new article out i had not seen yet - as a trigger for the question - did not see it on pub med yet - and did not do medline this a.m. thanks for the tip. i agree - real world - wait and see - besides it won't be used as an isolated additional test so what's the diff in the big picture when used in toto with what is already out there - US - quad - combined - integrated - whatever we choose to use? i will have to see the article - thanks mdmd At 10:11 AM 8/22/2007, you wrote: >Current Gray Journal has an article looking at nasal/facial planes >as sono correlates of trisomy....tho' when I see such reports I >discount heavily the possibility of the world at large, outside of >highly focused investigators, providing sono services accurately >employing such assessments. >Hank > >mark decker <mhdmd@wi.rr.com> wrote: >to be more specific - i saspect you are referencing prenasal >thickness in down's - tri 21 dx - > >the articles from 8-11/2005 are from one author and i can't find >follow up studies prekaryotype on follow up - the short pieces of the >articles i found don't discuss full incorporation into a quat screen >scenario per se - just comparing nb and nb abd prenasal measurements >with a 70% pick up rate at a 5% error rate with a combined screen > >nb screening is mentioned - varied results > >last full review i saw on tri 21 screening - looking at multiple >studies was from may 2007 > >hope this is useful to you > >thanks > >mdmd > >in short - validation studies not done yet - > >btw - fyi - maymon's study was on 21 down's infants and 500 controls > >At 06:33 AM 8/22/2007, you wrote: > >does anyone have experience in that subject?. > >I do not use actually > >l. folgar > >Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out ><http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evtH518/*http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/;_ylc=X3oDMTE3NWsyMDd2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDY2FyLWZpbmRlcg-->Yahoo! >Autos new Car Finder tool. Next message: mark decker: "Re: Medicare Says It Won't Cover Hospital Errors" Previous message: Henry Gregor: "Re: ultrasound prenasal thickness" In reply to: Henry Gregor: "Re: ultrasound prenasal thickness" Next in thread: art fougner, md: "Re: ultrasound prenasal thickness" Reply: art fougner, md: "Re: ultrasound prenasal thickness"

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Sun Nov 2 04:59:44 2008

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.