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

MSAFP vs triple screen From: Danny Tucker (danny.tucker@dial.pipex.com) Fri Jul 11 13:16:51 1997 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Prof. Farouk Fikry: "Re: any clues?" Previous message: Larry R. Glazerman, M.D.: "Re: REAL TIME PROGRAMING talk@OBGYN.net" Next in thread: YankowitzJ@obgyn-po.obgyn.uiowa.edu: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: YankowitzJ@obgyn-po.obgyn.uiowa.edu: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: Samir Saidi: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: Samir Saidi: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: Andrew R. MacRae: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: Jose C. Ferreira: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: ATB28@aol.com: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: Samir Saidi: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: Cheri Van Hoover: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: ATB28@aol.com: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Samir Saidi <sam@saidi.prestel.co.uk> said: -- SO, what about fetal nuchal translucency? Current (last month) quoted figures I believe, based on Kypros Nicholaides formulae, are a sensitivity of 80% for Down's. No extra cost? - 12/40 scan for dating often performed anyway. And I think more reassuring for the patient. -- Have to disagree here, Sam. Kypros's data has not been reproduced in terms of general population screening yet [see below]. As others have said, I'm sure it is in part due to his group's expertise as well as the selective population he gets. We need to be careful not to introduce yet another inadequately studied screening test into general usage. Surely we've learnt from the electronic FHR monitoring fiasco!! I have a real problem with the false positives. Also what you were saying about adequate counselling prior to the test, which of course often doesn't happen in the primary care setting. -- First trimester fetal nuchal translucency: problems with screening the general population. 1. Article Source: Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995 May;102(5):381-5 Author(s): Roberts LJ; Bewley S; Mackinson AM; Rodeck CH -- First trimester fetal nuchal translucency: problems with screening the general population. 2. Article Source: Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995 May;102(5):386-8 Author(s): Bewley S; Roberts LJ; Mackinson AM; Rodeck CH -- Nuchal translucency cannot be used as a screening test for chromosomal abnormalities in the first trimester of pregnancy in a routine ultrasound practice. Article Source: Prenat Diagn 1996 Sep;16(9):797-805 Author(s): Kornman LH; Morssink LP; Beekhuis JR; De Wolf BT; Heringa MP; Mantingh A -- Best wishes, Danny. -- Danny Tucker Nottingham, UK http://ds.dial.pipex.com/danny.tucker/ Next message: Prof. Farouk Fikry: "Re: any clues?" Previous message: Larry R. Glazerman, M.D.: "Re: REAL TIME PROGRAMING talk@OBGYN.net" Next in thread: YankowitzJ@obgyn-po.obgyn.uiowa.edu: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: YankowitzJ@obgyn-po.obgyn.uiowa.edu: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: Samir Saidi: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: Samir Saidi: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: Andrew R. MacRae: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: Jose C. Ferreira: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: ATB28@aol.com: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: Samir Saidi: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: Cheri Van Hoover: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen" Maybe reply: ATB28@aol.com: "Re: MSAFP vs triple screen"

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: Mon Nov 2 05:22:34 2009

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.