Re: risk recalculation
From: Randall W. Mountcastle (randallm@accessmg.com)
Thu Jan 15 17:36:00 2004
Can someone tell me how I can remove my name from this email distribution? Thank you.
Randall
-----Original Message-----
From: ultrasound@obgyn.net [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of David Nyberg
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 3:35 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
Subject: Re: risk recalculation
try
http://www.fetalcenter.org/AAURA.html
or
http://www.fetalandwomens.com/down_syndrome.html and click on the "AAURA" link
thanks
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, ΔÏ. Ιωάννης Îικολιδάκης wrote:
> where in your website is the file you mention below that I can download it?
> Y.Nickolidakis
> Athens, Greece.
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Nyberg" <nyberg@u.washington.edu>
> To: "Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND" <ultrasound@dns.obgyn.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:58 PM
> Subject: Re: risk recalculation
>
> > There is good evidence that biochemical markers and ultrasound markers are
> independent. Also, most ultrasound markers are indpendent of one another.
> We have previously reported likelihood ratios for ultrasound markers as
> isolated findings, assuming that you also perform a systematic "genetic
> sonogram" in the same or similar manner, and the finding really is isolated
> (ie don't forget humerus length shortening). We showed that isolated EIF
> carries a Likelihood ratio of 1.8, or estimate as 2. This does not apply to
> asian populations however, because of the high prevalence of EIF among
> asian. Although a right sided EIF is considerably more unusual than a left
> sided one- and I'd be sure you are not identifying the moderator band rather
> than an EIF- I would not change the likelihood ratio based on this alone.
> On the other hand, bilateral EIFs definitely seem to carry a higher risk- we
> just don't know how to quantify that risk yet.
> > So in this case, with the caveats mentioned, the risk should be no more
> than about 1:300 (606/2) and in fact a little lower than that if you use a
> LR of 1.8. In other words, the patient remains in the "low risk" category
> despite the finding based on the normal first trimester screen. You can
> still download or see an excel file that quantifies this at an educational
> website, http://www.fetalcenter. org
> >
> > hope this helps
> >
> > David
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Patrizia wrote:
> >
> > > dear colleagues
> > >
> > > having an ultrascreening risk of 1:606 at 12 th week of gestation
> > > the finding of a golf ball in the right ventricle at 20 th week of
> > > gestation, how modify the risk for down syndrome?
> > >
> > > thank you for support
> > >
> > > dr patrizia
> > >
> >
> > David Nyberg, MD
> > 10401 E McDowell Mtn Ranch Rd
> > #2-372
> > Scottsdale, AZ 85255
> > ph cell 480-797-0993
> > fax 480-512-8737
> > work 480-512-3850
> >
>
David Nyberg, MD
10401 E McDowell Mtn Ranch Rd
#2-372
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
ph cell 480-797-0993
fax 480-512-8737
work 480-512-3850
