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)...
Saved in:
Published in: | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 1998-03, Vol.178 (3), p.441-445 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
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 < 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.)</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&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 < 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.)</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 < 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.)</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 |