Long-term experience of general ultrasound screening in pregnancy

Persson, Per‐Håkan; Kullander, Stig

doi:10.1016/0002-9378(83)90970-5

Cited by 103 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have estimated the cost of a second trimester ultrasound scan to be about £11 in the United Kingdom 6 and $13 in Sweden. 13 A Norwegian study estimated the cost of a two stage ultrasound screening programme at 19 and 32 weeks' gestation to be $250 for each pregnancy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of routine versus selective fetal anomaly ultrasound scanning

Long

Sprigg

1998

J Med Screen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives-To evaluate the cost-benefit of changing from selective (high risk) to routine ultrasound screening for fetal anomaly. Setting-Women booked by general practitioners for primary antenatal care at their local hospital. Methods-Prospective study of the 12 months before and after introduction of routine second trimester ultrasound for fetal anomaly at our institution. All congenital abnormalities, mode of detection, and outcome were recorded and a cost analysis of the programme attempted. Results-In the 12 months of selective (high risk) ultrasound policy, detailed second trimester scans were performed in 1007 (26%) pregnancies. In the 12 months of routine ultrasound anomaly screening, scans were performed in 3529 (93%) pregnancies. Routine ultrasound was the sole method of detection for 11 major and 18 less severe congenital abnormalities found in low risk pregnancies which would not previously have qualified for high risk ultrasound. In seven of these cases the parents opted for termination of pregnancy, with estimated savings on treatment and long term care of £1 015 546. The financial cost of providing the ultrasound screening service at our hospital for 12 months was calculated at £57 573 and the resulting financial benefit for the year was estimated at £957 973. Conclusion-Although it is recognised that many of the emotional and psychological costs and benefits of the service are diYcult to evaluate, routine fetal anomaly ultrasound would seem to be economically justifiable. The financial savings achieved at our hospital would translate into a potential annual saving for the National Health Service of nearly £170 million if screening were oVered in all hospitals in England and Wales. (J Med Screen 1998;5:6-10)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of routine versus selective fetal anomaly ultrasound scanning

Long

Sprigg

1998

J Med Screen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18,30 It is the most accurate means of detecting retardation in fetal growth 31 and multiple gestations 32 and it is effective in detecting severe malformations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound Screening in Low-risk Obstetrical Population: Effect on Perinatal Outcome

Theodora¹,

Antsaklis²

2008

Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The issue of routine sonography for low-risk pregnant women continues to be controversial since randomized trials have not been able to demonstrate a clear benefit especially in prenatal outcome in the past. Ultrasonography early in pregnancy can be definitely used for accurate gestational age determination and detection of multiple gestations. Additionally ultrasound scan is the best method for detecting fetal malformation as well as fetuses in high-risk for growth restriction. Since fetal chromosomal and structural anomalies, prematurity and poor placentation account for 90% of poor perinatal outcome, ultrasound could theoretically help in decreasing perinatal mortality and severe perinatal morbidity.

show abstract

“…However, if repeated BPD measurements are the only ultrasonic method in routine use, one should consider to do without this method. The rapid progress in ultrasound technology has given us new methods of diagnosing IUGR, such as measurements of the fetal abdominal diameter or crown-rump length [15,18], total intrauterine volume [6] or amniotic fluid volume [13]. Although reported as very successful, these ultrasonic measurements require considerable skill and have so far neither been proved to be more effective than the SF method for antenatal diagnosis of IUGR [25], nor demonstrated to improve perinatal outcome [14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In term pregnancies (gestational age > 36 completed weeks, n = 358), a third measurement was performed between week 37 and term. BPD growth was also assessed as pathological if this measurement was 2 SD or more below the mean of the Swedish BPD growth curve [17,18].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The clinical value of measurements of the symphysis-fundus distance and ultrasonic measurements of the biparietal diameter in the diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation

Cnattingius¹,

Axelssön²,

Lindmark³

1985

Journal of Perinatal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-term experience of general ultrasound screening in pregnancy

Cited by 103 publications

References 10 publications

A comparative study of routine versus selective fetal anomaly ultrasound scanning

A comparative study of routine versus selective fetal anomaly ultrasound scanning

Ultrasound Screening in Low-risk Obstetrical Population: Effect on Perinatal Outcome

The clinical value of measurements of the symphysis-fundus distance and ultrasonic measurements of the biparietal diameter in the diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About