-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: Standard of Care, nuchal translucency From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com) Wed Feb 3 11:49:51 1999 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Braun, R. Daniel: "Re: Positive RPR, negative FT-ABS" Previous message: Mr J K Gupta MD, MRCOG: "Isolated Protein S deficiency and pregnancy" In reply to: Dan Logen: "Re: Standard of Care, nuchal translucency" Next in thread: ATB28@aol.com: "Re: Standard of Care, nuchal translucency" but it WILL be. the most important point Allan makes is that there should be INFORMED consent. in other words, if one is going to measure nuchal translucency, the patient should understand the implications. furthermore, NT screening will doubtless be combined with serum screening to enhance the sensitivity. hopefully all of this may someday be supplanted by evaluation of fetal cells in maternal circulation. cross your fingers and stay tuned. Art At Wed, 3 Feb 1999, ATB28@aol.com wrote: > >In a message dated 2/2/1999 8:22:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, pdl@whidbey.net >writes: > ><< What is the feeling of this group? If you find yourself doing a scan > > between 10 menstrual weeks and 14 menstrual weeks, could you be found > > wanting for not evaluating the nuchal translucency during that scan? >> > >Lacking uniform guidelines for assessment of normal and abnormal values; >consistency in training, evaluation, scan technique and reporting; ongoing >quality assessment (all 3 advocated by Kypros Nicolaides' group before a >program is initiated); and - most importantly - acknowledgement by ACOG that >this represents a standard of contemporary obstetric practice, NT screening in >the first trimester should certainly be considered investigational at present. >It should be accomplished in centers under research protocol and patients >evaluated should be informed of the current standard of care of screening for >aneuploidy in the U.S., vis-a-vis multiple marker screening in the 2nd >trimester. > >At present, at least 2 prospective randomized U.S. trials are in the offing. >Once completed, these should answer the questions about validity of screening >for aneuploidy using NT and serum markers in the 1st trimester. Also at >present, NT screening in the first trimester is NOT standard of practice in >this country. Thus, one would *not* be found wanting for failing to offer an >investigational service outside of study protocol. > >Allan T. Bombard, MD >Clinical Professor, >Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health >Albert Einstein College of Medicine -- art fougner, md SonoScan/Genetic Sciences forest hills, ny evsono@pipeline.com Next message: Braun, R. Daniel: "Re: Positive RPR, negative FT-ABS" Previous message: Mr J K Gupta MD, MRCOG: "Isolated Protein S deficiency and pregnancy" In reply to: Dan Logen: "Re: Standard of Care, nuchal translucency" Next in thread: ATB28@aol.com: "Re: Standard of Care, nuchal translucency"

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 05:30:34 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.