-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: Down syndrome ultrasound????? From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com) Fri Mar 2 10:21:40 2001 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Richar B Kates MD: "Re: GEN: MS Word help -- REPLY" Previous message: Dr. Lynn Montgomery: "Re: Down syndrome ultrasound?????" currently, there are enough "soft markers" to support almost any amnio. jeanty's group suggested the following - High Risk ( abn serum screen, hx, age, etc) + one marker - offer amnio Low Risk + two or more markers - offer amnio. now that these markers have been published, to not report findings is a malpractice suit waiting to happen. FASTER trial can't conclude soon enough. art At Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Dr. Lynn Montgomery wrote: > >Dan, >Most of the stuff, including Benacerraf's studies, Nyberg's studies and an >oral presented at SMFM two weeks ago by Egan, et al out of UCONN, suggest >that the combined use of ultrasound and serum markers give the best >detection rate and indication to offer amnio. In Egan's study they found in >an AMA population that the combined approach detected 97.6%, but that of the >two, ultrasound was less sensitive than the serum markers (85.7% vs 92.7%). >Unfortunately, this was a retrospective study, there were only 83 patients >and they don't say what their false positive rate was (those receiving amnio >because of serum marker/ultrasound findings with normal karyotype). This >data would certainly be important in determining the risk pointed to in the >study you found. >Lynn > >-----Original Message----- >From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net]On Behalf Of Braun, >R. Daniel >Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 9:20 AM >To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L >Subject: Down syndrome ultrasound????? > >Second trimester ultrasound to detect fetuses with Down syndrome.: A >Meta-analysis. >Smith-Bindman, Hosmer, Feldstein Deeks and Goldberg > >JAMA 2001;285:1044-1055 >Feb.28,2001 issue. > >I just found this in my JAMA. >The authors conclusions were That using ultrasound markers as a basis for >deciding to offer amniocentesis will result in more fetal losses than cases >of Down syndrome detected, and will lead to a decrease in the prenatal >detection of fetuses with Down Syndrome. > >I was under the impression that a lot of people are doing just that. Am I >wrong? > >Dan > >R. Daniel Braun, MD > >A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes. > Lazarus Long -- art fougner, md A series of 1000 cases begins with but a single anecdote. Next message: Richar B Kates MD: "Re: GEN: MS Word help -- REPLY" Previous message: Dr. Lynn Montgomery: "Re: Down syndrome ultrasound?????"

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 04:47:49 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.