Loading…

Subtle ultrasonographic anomalies: Do they improve the Down syndrome detection rate?

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine whether the identification of subtle anomalies further improves Down syndrome detection over standard ultrasonographic biometry and the detection of gross morphologic defects. STUDY DESIGN: The screening efficiency of clinodactyly, dilated renal pelvis (≥4 mm)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 1998-03, Vol.178 (3), p.441-445
Main Authors: Deren, Ozgur, Mahoney, Maurice J., Copel, Joshua A., Bahado-Singh, Ray O.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-6c3db709f71e650241389a8913b914ac30cec3bece3b1b8a6c61aa37120b7cc3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-6c3db709f71e650241389a8913b914ac30cec3bece3b1b8a6c61aa37120b7cc3
container_end_page 445
container_issue 3
container_start_page 441
container_title American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
container_volume 178
creator Deren, Ozgur
Mahoney, Maurice J.
Copel, Joshua A.
Bahado-Singh, Ray O.
description OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine whether the identification of subtle anomalies further improves Down syndrome detection over standard ultrasonographic biometry and the detection of gross morphologic defects. STUDY DESIGN: The screening efficiency of clinodactyly, dilated renal pelvis (≥4 mm), echogenic bowel, mild ventriculomegaly (≥10 to 15 mm), and two-vessel cord was determined prospectively in midtrimester fetuses at amniocentesis. The screening efficiency of increased nuchal thickness and shortened long-bone length (standard biometry) and gross morphologic defects was determined for comparison. Multiple backward stepwise regression analysis was used to determine which subtle anomalies significantly correlated with Down syndrome detection rate and whether they increased Down syndrome detection over that with standard biometry and morphologic defects. RESULTS: Although all subtle anomalies except two-vessel cord correlated with the presence of Down syndrome on univariate analysis, only echogenic bowel (Wald χ 2 = 15.0211, p = 0.0001) and clinodactyly (Wald χ 2 = 9.4273, p = 0.002) persisted in regression analysis of the subtle anomaly group. When either of the above-described anomalies was present, the detection rate for Down syndrome was 28.6%, p < 0.00001. For the combination of standard biometry (either increased nuchal thickness or short humerus) or gross anatomic defect, Down syndrome detection rate was 53.3% ( p < 0.00000001). This increased to 63.2% ( p < 0.00000001) when subtle anatomic defects (either echogenic bowel or clinodactyly) were included in the definition of an abnormal sonogram. CONCLUSION: Subtle anomalies, of which echogenic bowel and clinodactyly are the most significant, further increase Down syndrome screening efficiency over standard biometry or the finding of gross anatomic defect. Our data appear to support the addition of subtle anomaly findings to ultrasonographic screening for Down syndrome. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:441-5.)
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70417-X
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79783770</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S000293789870417X</els_id><sourcerecordid>79783770</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-6c3db709f71e650241389a8913b914ac30cec3bece3b1b8a6c61aa37120b7cc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtLxDAQgIMouj5-gtCDiB6qSdM2iZdF1icseNg9eAvpdKqRtlmTVtl_b_fBXj0NM_PNg4-Qc0ZvGGX57YxSmsSKC3ml5LWgKRPx-x4ZMapEnMtc7pPRDjkixyF8rdJEJYfkUGVcZTQbkfmsL7oao77uvAmudR_eLD4tRKZ1jakthrvowUXdJy4j2yy8-8FVMtR-2ygs29K7BqMSO4TOujbypsPxKTmoTB3wbBtPyPzpcT55iadvz6-T-2kMKc-7OAdeFoKqSjDMM5qkjEtlpGK8UCw1wCkg8AIBecEKaXLImTFcsIQWAoCfkMvN2uGt7x5DpxsbAOvatOj6oIUSkgtBBzDbgOBdCB4rvfC2MX6pGdUrmXotU69MaSX1WqZ-H-bOtwf6osFyN7W1N_Qvtn0TwNSVNy3YsMMSpjKRqAEbbzAcXPxY9DqAxRawtH7Qpktn_3nkDyzjkd8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>79783770</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Subtle ultrasonographic anomalies: Do they improve the Down syndrome detection rate?</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Deren, Ozgur ; Mahoney, Maurice J. ; Copel, Joshua A. ; Bahado-Singh, Ray O.</creator><creatorcontrib>Deren, Ozgur ; Mahoney, Maurice J. ; Copel, Joshua A. ; Bahado-Singh, Ray O.</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine whether the identification of subtle anomalies further improves Down syndrome detection over standard ultrasonographic biometry and the detection of gross morphologic defects. STUDY DESIGN: The screening efficiency of clinodactyly, dilated renal pelvis (≥4 mm), echogenic bowel, mild ventriculomegaly (≥10 to 15 mm), and two-vessel cord was determined prospectively in midtrimester fetuses at amniocentesis. The screening efficiency of increased nuchal thickness and shortened long-bone length (standard biometry) and gross morphologic defects was determined for comparison. Multiple backward stepwise regression analysis was used to determine which subtle anomalies significantly correlated with Down syndrome detection rate and whether they increased Down syndrome detection over that with standard biometry and morphologic defects. RESULTS: Although all subtle anomalies except two-vessel cord correlated with the presence of Down syndrome on univariate analysis, only echogenic bowel (Wald χ 2 = 15.0211, p = 0.0001) and clinodactyly (Wald χ 2 = 9.4273, p = 0.002) persisted in regression analysis of the subtle anomaly group. When either of the above-described anomalies was present, the detection rate for Down syndrome was 28.6%, p &lt; 0.00001. For the combination of standard biometry (either increased nuchal thickness or short humerus) or gross anatomic defect, Down syndrome detection rate was 53.3% ( p &lt; 0.00000001). This increased to 63.2% ( p &lt; 0.00000001) when subtle anatomic defects (either echogenic bowel or clinodactyly) were included in the definition of an abnormal sonogram. CONCLUSION: Subtle anomalies, of which echogenic bowel and clinodactyly are the most significant, further increase Down syndrome screening efficiency over standard biometry or the finding of gross anatomic defect. Our data appear to support the addition of subtle anomaly findings to ultrasonographic screening for Down syndrome. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:441-5.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9378</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6868</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70417-X</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9539505</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJOGAH</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia, PA: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Abnormalities, Multiple - diagnostic imaging ; Anthropometry - methods ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cerebral Ventricles - abnormalities ; Cerebral Ventricles - diagnostic imaging ; Down syndrome ; Down Syndrome - diagnostic imaging ; Female ; Fingers - abnormalities ; Fingers - diagnostic imaging ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Intestines - abnormalities ; Intestines - diagnostic imaging ; Kidney Pelvis - abnormalities ; Kidney Pelvis - diagnostic imaging ; Management. Prenatal diagnosis ; Medical sciences ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Trimester, Second ; Pregnancy. Fetus. Placenta ; Prospective Studies ; Statistics as Topic ; Ultrasonographic biometry ; Ultrasonography, Doppler, Color ; Ultrasonography, Doppler, Transcranial ; Ultrasonography, Prenatal</subject><ispartof>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1998-03, Vol.178 (3), p.441-445</ispartof><rights>1998 Mosby, Inc.</rights><rights>1998 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-6c3db709f71e650241389a8913b914ac30cec3bece3b1b8a6c61aa37120b7cc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-6c3db709f71e650241389a8913b914ac30cec3bece3b1b8a6c61aa37120b7cc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=2195729$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9539505$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Deren, Ozgur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahoney, Maurice J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Copel, Joshua A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bahado-Singh, Ray O.</creatorcontrib><title>Subtle ultrasonographic anomalies: Do they improve the Down syndrome detection rate?</title><title>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</title><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine whether the identification of subtle anomalies further improves Down syndrome detection over standard ultrasonographic biometry and the detection of gross morphologic defects. STUDY DESIGN: The screening efficiency of clinodactyly, dilated renal pelvis (≥4 mm), echogenic bowel, mild ventriculomegaly (≥10 to 15 mm), and two-vessel cord was determined prospectively in midtrimester fetuses at amniocentesis. The screening efficiency of increased nuchal thickness and shortened long-bone length (standard biometry) and gross morphologic defects was determined for comparison. Multiple backward stepwise regression analysis was used to determine which subtle anomalies significantly correlated with Down syndrome detection rate and whether they increased Down syndrome detection over that with standard biometry and morphologic defects. RESULTS: Although all subtle anomalies except two-vessel cord correlated with the presence of Down syndrome on univariate analysis, only echogenic bowel (Wald χ 2 = 15.0211, p = 0.0001) and clinodactyly (Wald χ 2 = 9.4273, p = 0.002) persisted in regression analysis of the subtle anomaly group. When either of the above-described anomalies was present, the detection rate for Down syndrome was 28.6%, p &lt; 0.00001. For the combination of standard biometry (either increased nuchal thickness or short humerus) or gross anatomic defect, Down syndrome detection rate was 53.3% ( p &lt; 0.00000001). This increased to 63.2% ( p &lt; 0.00000001) when subtle anatomic defects (either echogenic bowel or clinodactyly) were included in the definition of an abnormal sonogram. CONCLUSION: Subtle anomalies, of which echogenic bowel and clinodactyly are the most significant, further increase Down syndrome screening efficiency over standard biometry or the finding of gross anatomic defect. Our data appear to support the addition of subtle anomaly findings to ultrasonographic screening for Down syndrome. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:441-5.)</description><subject>Abnormalities, Multiple - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Anthropometry - methods</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cerebral Ventricles - abnormalities</subject><subject>Cerebral Ventricles - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Down syndrome</subject><subject>Down Syndrome - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fingers - abnormalities</subject><subject>Fingers - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intestines - abnormalities</subject><subject>Intestines - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Kidney Pelvis - abnormalities</subject><subject>Kidney Pelvis - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Management. Prenatal diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Trimester, Second</subject><subject>Pregnancy. Fetus. Placenta</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Statistics as Topic</subject><subject>Ultrasonographic biometry</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Doppler, Color</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Doppler, Transcranial</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Prenatal</subject><issn>0002-9378</issn><issn>1097-6868</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkEtLxDAQgIMouj5-gtCDiB6qSdM2iZdF1icseNg9eAvpdKqRtlmTVtl_b_fBXj0NM_PNg4-Qc0ZvGGX57YxSmsSKC3ml5LWgKRPx-x4ZMapEnMtc7pPRDjkixyF8rdJEJYfkUGVcZTQbkfmsL7oao77uvAmudR_eLD4tRKZ1jakthrvowUXdJy4j2yy8-8FVMtR-2ygs29K7BqMSO4TOujbypsPxKTmoTB3wbBtPyPzpcT55iadvz6-T-2kMKc-7OAdeFoKqSjDMM5qkjEtlpGK8UCw1wCkg8AIBecEKaXLImTFcsIQWAoCfkMvN2uGt7x5DpxsbAOvatOj6oIUSkgtBBzDbgOBdCB4rvfC2MX6pGdUrmXotU69MaSX1WqZ-H-bOtwf6osFyN7W1N_Qvtn0TwNSVNy3YsMMSpjKRqAEbbzAcXPxY9DqAxRawtH7Qpktn_3nkDyzjkd8</recordid><startdate>19980301</startdate><enddate>19980301</enddate><creator>Deren, Ozgur</creator><creator>Mahoney, Maurice J.</creator><creator>Copel, Joshua A.</creator><creator>Bahado-Singh, Ray O.</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19980301</creationdate><title>Subtle ultrasonographic anomalies: Do they improve the Down syndrome detection rate?</title><author>Deren, Ozgur ; Mahoney, Maurice J. ; Copel, Joshua A. ; Bahado-Singh, Ray O.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-6c3db709f71e650241389a8913b914ac30cec3bece3b1b8a6c61aa37120b7cc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Abnormalities, Multiple - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Anthropometry - methods</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cerebral Ventricles - abnormalities</topic><topic>Cerebral Ventricles - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Down syndrome</topic><topic>Down Syndrome - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fingers - abnormalities</topic><topic>Fingers - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intestines - abnormalities</topic><topic>Intestines - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Kidney Pelvis - abnormalities</topic><topic>Kidney Pelvis - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Management. Prenatal diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Trimester, Second</topic><topic>Pregnancy. Fetus. Placenta</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Statistics as Topic</topic><topic>Ultrasonographic biometry</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Doppler, Color</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Doppler, Transcranial</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Prenatal</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Deren, Ozgur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahoney, Maurice J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Copel, Joshua A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bahado-Singh, Ray O.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Deren, Ozgur</au><au>Mahoney, Maurice J.</au><au>Copel, Joshua A.</au><au>Bahado-Singh, Ray O.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Subtle ultrasonographic anomalies: Do they improve the Down syndrome detection rate?</atitle><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>1998-03-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>178</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>441</spage><epage>445</epage><pages>441-445</pages><issn>0002-9378</issn><eissn>1097-6868</eissn><coden>AJOGAH</coden><abstract>OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine whether the identification of subtle anomalies further improves Down syndrome detection over standard ultrasonographic biometry and the detection of gross morphologic defects. STUDY DESIGN: The screening efficiency of clinodactyly, dilated renal pelvis (≥4 mm), echogenic bowel, mild ventriculomegaly (≥10 to 15 mm), and two-vessel cord was determined prospectively in midtrimester fetuses at amniocentesis. The screening efficiency of increased nuchal thickness and shortened long-bone length (standard biometry) and gross morphologic defects was determined for comparison. Multiple backward stepwise regression analysis was used to determine which subtle anomalies significantly correlated with Down syndrome detection rate and whether they increased Down syndrome detection over that with standard biometry and morphologic defects. RESULTS: Although all subtle anomalies except two-vessel cord correlated with the presence of Down syndrome on univariate analysis, only echogenic bowel (Wald χ 2 = 15.0211, p = 0.0001) and clinodactyly (Wald χ 2 = 9.4273, p = 0.002) persisted in regression analysis of the subtle anomaly group. When either of the above-described anomalies was present, the detection rate for Down syndrome was 28.6%, p &lt; 0.00001. For the combination of standard biometry (either increased nuchal thickness or short humerus) or gross anatomic defect, Down syndrome detection rate was 53.3% ( p &lt; 0.00000001). This increased to 63.2% ( p &lt; 0.00000001) when subtle anatomic defects (either echogenic bowel or clinodactyly) were included in the definition of an abnormal sonogram. CONCLUSION: Subtle anomalies, of which echogenic bowel and clinodactyly are the most significant, further increase Down syndrome screening efficiency over standard biometry or the finding of gross anatomic defect. Our data appear to support the addition of subtle anomaly findings to ultrasonographic screening for Down syndrome. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:441-5.)</abstract><cop>Philadelphia, PA</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>9539505</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70417-X</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-9378
ispartof American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1998-03, Vol.178 (3), p.441-445
issn 0002-9378
1097-6868
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79783770
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
subjects Abnormalities, Multiple - diagnostic imaging
Anthropometry - methods
Biological and medical sciences
Cerebral Ventricles - abnormalities
Cerebral Ventricles - diagnostic imaging
Down syndrome
Down Syndrome - diagnostic imaging
Female
Fingers - abnormalities
Fingers - diagnostic imaging
Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics
Humans
Intestines - abnormalities
Intestines - diagnostic imaging
Kidney Pelvis - abnormalities
Kidney Pelvis - diagnostic imaging
Management. Prenatal diagnosis
Medical sciences
Predictive Value of Tests
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Trimester, Second
Pregnancy. Fetus. Placenta
Prospective Studies
Statistics as Topic
Ultrasonographic biometry
Ultrasonography, Doppler, Color
Ultrasonography, Doppler, Transcranial
Ultrasonography, Prenatal
title Subtle ultrasonographic anomalies: Do they improve the Down syndrome detection rate?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T06%3A39%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Subtle%20ultrasonographic%20anomalies:%20Do%20they%20improve%20the%20Down%20syndrome%20detection%20rate?&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynecology&rft.au=Deren,%20Ozgur&rft.date=1998-03-01&rft.volume=178&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=441&rft.epage=445&rft.pages=441-445&rft.issn=0002-9378&rft.eissn=1097-6868&rft.coden=AJOGAH&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70417-X&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E79783770%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-6c3db709f71e650241389a8913b914ac30cec3bece3b1b8a6c61aa37120b7cc3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=79783770&rft_id=info:pmid/9539505&rfr_iscdi=true