Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/50794
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Cocciolone, R. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Brameld, K. | - |
dc.contributor.author | OLeary, P. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Haan, E. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Muller, P. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Shand, K. | - |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2008; 48(5):492-500 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0004-8666 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1479-828X | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2440/50794 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Aims: This study compares different screening strategies for the detection of Down syndrome and considers practical implications of using multiple screening protocols. Methods: The performance characteristics of each screening strategy were assessed based on datasets of Down syndrome (n = 11) and unaffected pregnancies (n = 1006) tested in both first and second trimester, as well as data from first trimester (n = 18 901) and second trimester (n = 40 748) pregnancies. Results: For a detection rate of 91%, the false positive rates for integrated and serum integrated screening were 2.5% and 6.3%, respectively, compared with combined first trimester (4.6%) and second trimester (12.6%) screening. Contingent and sequential screening protocols achieved detection rates of 82 to 91% with false positive rates between 2.6 and 2.9%. Contingent protocols require retesting of 15 to 20% of cases in the second trimester. Sequential and integrated protocols require retesting of 98 to 100% of cases in the second trimester. The various screening strategies did not always detect the same Down syndrome pregnancies. Conclusions: Combining first and second trimester markers for Down syndrome screening better defines the at-risk population. However, integrated protocols complicate management of screening programs and may not be suitable as primary screening strategies. It may be a better use of resources to refine current first and second trimester programs through improved access and new markers. We therefore suggest thinking twice before embracing integrated population screening programs. | - |
dc.description.statementofresponsibility | Robert Cocciolone, Kate Brameld, Peter O’Leary, Eric Haan, Peter Muller, Karen Shand | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.publisher | Blackwell Publishing Asia | - |
dc.rights | © 2009 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. | - |
dc.source.uri | http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121476797/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 | - |
dc.subject | Down syndrome | - |
dc.subject | integrated contingent | - |
dc.subject | first trimester screening | - |
dc.title | Combining first and second trimester markers for Down syndrome screening: Think twice | - |
dc.type | Journal article | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2008.00911.x | - |
pubs.publication-status | Published | - |
dc.identifier.orcid | Haan, E. [0000-0002-7310-5124] | - |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest Paediatrics publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.