Screening for small for dates fetuses: a controlled trial.

Neilson, James P; Munjanja, Stephen; Whitfield, C. R.

doi:10.1136/bmj.289.6453.1179

Cited by 129 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In one trial, no significant difference was found between the Apgar scores for the two groups 328 Ringa/Carrat/Blondel/Breart Misdiagnosis of IUGR and Preterm Elective Cesarean Section [10]; however, the series only included 33 SFD babies (17 in the routine group and 16 in the selective group). In the other trial, 2 peri natal deaths due to IUGR were reported in the scanned group versus four in the con trol group [11], Furthermore, Hughey [6], who conducted a nonrandomized controlled study, did not observe any significant differ ence in the outcome for the SFD babies be tween the routinely and selectively scanned groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of Misdiagnosis of Intrauterine Growth Retardation for Preterm Elective Cesarean Section

et al. 1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied the consequences of misdiagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) for preterm elective cesarean section among live singleton newborns in two teaching hospitals in Paris between 1978 and 1983. The population studied comprised the 16,540 babies who were normal for date, according to the 10th percentile of the reference curve established in this population. For 118 of these infants, IUGR had been diagnosed during pregnancy. The preterm elective cesarean section rate was 12.7% among newborns for whom IUGR was erroneously diagnosed, compared to 1.2% among those for whom IUGR was not diagnosed. The relationship between preterm cesarean section and misdiagnosis of IUGR still existed (odds ratio: 5.2, 95% CI: 2.1–12.9) after taking into account obstetric history and hypertension during pregnancy. Our results show that after diagnosis of IUGR, supplementary tests are essential to confirm fetal distress and consequently avoid unnecessary interventions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of Misdiagnosis of Intrauterine Growth Retardation for Preterm Elective Cesarean Section

et al. 1993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neilson et al [ 18] compared correctly diagnosed and non-diagnosed small-for-date babies, but their series were too small (16 versus 17) to enable them to show really significant differ ences. We are now examining the conse quences of erroneous diagnosis in a further analysis of the population studied here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Maternal and Fetal Characteristics on Diagnosis of Intrauterine Growth Retardation

Carrat

Ringa²,

Blondel³

et al. 1990

Fetal Diagn Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied the fetal and maternal characteristics that affect the diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation and lead to variations in the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. The population comprised the 18,166 women who consulted and delivered in two teaching hospitals in Paris from 1978 to 1983. Specificity was lower when a child was born before 37 weeks, with a small weight-for-gestational age, and when the mother had experienced complications during either her obstetric history or current pregnancy. Conversely, sensitivity was higher when these maternal and fetal characteristics were present. Positive predictive values rose in the presence of a risk factor for small-for-dates, but the rise was smaller than would have been expected if sensitivity and specificity had remained at the levels observed in the low-risk group.

show abstract

“…In 1984, the focus of the Glasgow study [12] was to detect infants who were small for dates. The authors found a sensitivity and specificity of 94 and 90%, respectively, for identified infants who were small for dates.…”

Section: Early Experience With Routine Screening Ultrasound Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important for the clinician to realize [12], 1984 877 24 and 32 no improvement no reduction of induced labor Aselund study [13], 1984 1,628 18 reduction of induced labor Trondheim study [14], 1984 1,009 19 and 32 no improvement that comprehensive examination of the fetal anatomy is an essential, not optional, part of the routine examination. Screening may lead to unnecessary anxiety if there is a false-positive result, or to a false sense of security if there is a false-negative result [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Debate about Ultrasound Screening Policies

Antsaklis¹

1998

Fetal Diagn Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Routine ultrasound examination is defined as a screening procedure performed on the total obstetric population usually at 18–20 weeks of gestation as opposed to the selective use of ultrasound that might provide more information for a problem that is suspected on clinical grounds. Standard ultrasound examination includes a comprehensive examination of fetal anatomy as part of routine ultrasound. It is important for the clinician to realise that the comprehensive examination of fetal anatomy is an essential, not optional, part of the routine examination. Screening may lead to unnecessary anxiety if there is a false-positive result, or to a false sense of security if there is a false-negative result. The routine offering of obstetric ultrasound screening is the central issue in the general question of whether every woman should receive an obstetric ultrasound examination. The majority of countries have adopted the following diagnostic strategy. All pregnancies must be ultrasonographically tested in accordance with the protocols commonly recommended. The ultrasonography done at 18–20 weeks, which is known to be fundamental for diagnosing prenatal malformations, must always be performed at level II. High-risk pregnancies of malformations are to be selected in the first level of screening and referred to level II for further study. There is extensive literature neither supporting an improvement in perinatal morbidity or mortality nor an overall reduction in unnecessary intervention with routine ultrasound. The role of routine ultrasonography and its validity as a screening test for fetal malformation in a low-risk population is still the object of debate.

show abstract

Screening for small for dates fetuses: a controlled trial.

Cited by 129 publications

References 20 publications

Consequences of Misdiagnosis of Intrauterine Growth Retardation for Preterm Elective Cesarean Section

Consequences of Misdiagnosis of Intrauterine Growth Retardation for Preterm Elective Cesarean Section

Effect of Maternal and Fetal Characteristics on Diagnosis of Intrauterine Growth Retardation

Debate about Ultrasound Screening Policies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About