Randomised Controlled Trial of Ultrasonographic Screening in Pregnancy

Ls, Bakketeig; Jacobsen, Geir; Brodtkorb, ChristianJ.; Eriksen, BjarneC.; Eik‐Nes, S. H.; Ulstein, MagnarK.; Balstad, Per; Jørgensen, N Feilberg

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(84)90492-6

Cited by 164 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, despite that our rate of SGA neonates was 60% higher than expected (16% vs 10%), our detection rate was worse than any cited by ACOG practice bulletins [1,8]. With a high likelihood of abnormal fetal growth at our institute, we expected to have a better accuracy in predicting SGA neonates than the published reports, which had rates of IUGR of 4% to 13% [9][10][11][12][13]. The possible explanations for our poor performance are: clinical examination and Leopold maneuvers are poor techniques to detect SGA; the increase in the rate of maternal obesity [14] has rendered symphyseal-fundal measurement and clinical estimate of birth weight less useful [15]; multiple factors influence the accuracy of SEFW [16]; despite ACOG suggestions that SEFW does not have to be repeated for 2-4 weeks, its accuracy deteriorates over time [16]; and the threshold of what is below the 10th percentile for GA by Hadlock et al [7] differs from that of Alexander et al [6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Inadequate identification of small‐for‐gestational‐age fetuses at an urban teaching hospital

Mattioli

Sanderson

Chauhan

2010

Intl J Gynecology & Obste

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Inadequate identification of small‐for‐gestational‐age fetuses at an urban teaching hospital

Mattioli

Sanderson

Chauhan

2010

Intl J Gynecology & Obste

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…International trials from the early 1980s [26][27][28] reported no statistically significant benefits from screening as opposed to selective use of ultrasound. Referring to this evidence, the report recommended not using ultrasound screening.…”

Section: Risk For What?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk and security in childbirth

Kringeland¹,

Möller

2006

Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk and security are often defined as being complementary. Security is based on risk calculations, which undergo constant change. An increasing number of abnormalities can be uncovered in the human body, and more and more people are defined as being at risk for various diseases or at risk as child bearers. The aim of this paper is to examine the notion of risk, and to understand it in different ways as it is applied to childbirth. General and professional perspectives on risk are different; views vary as to what constitutes acceptable risk, and the association between normalcy and complications is socially and culturally determined. Figures for risk and reliability are not objective values. The safe and the risky are anchored in certain symbol systems. Alternative and dialogic notions have been introduced in conversations and thinking about risk, and medicalism and paternalism have been questioned. This questioning has thus far had little influence on clinical practice. The two opposite perspectives of risk and security in the area of pregnancy and birth should be taken into consideration. The childbearing woman has preferences of her own. Dialog with the health professional and information about professional facts and professional uncertainty should be offered.

show abstract

“…Two randomized controlled trials of ultrasonographic screening in pregnancy were carried out in Trondheim and Alesund, Norway, between 1979 and 1981 (Bakketeig et al, 1984; EikNes, 0kland, Aure, & Ulstein, 1984). Between 1988 and 1990, a total of 2,161 children were followed up to assess possible harmful effects of routine ultrasonography in utero (Salvesen, Bakketeig, Eik-Nes, Undheim, & 0k-land, 1992).…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for Learning Disabilities with Teacher Rating Scales

Salvesen¹,

Undheim

1994

J Learn Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study was to investigate the use of teacher assessments in screening for learning disabilities. In a longitudinal study, 603 children were rated by their teachers in the second grade (age 8 to 9 years), and the ratings were correlated with examinations of reading, spelling, and intelligence in the third grade. The third-grade tests for reading, spelling, and intelligence classified children into groups with low achievement and dyslexia, and these two groups were compared with normally achieving children. The accuracy of teacher assessments, measured with correlation analysis, ROC curves, and kappa indices, showed that teachers were quite accurate in their judgment of low achievement, but somewhat less efficient in their judgment of specific reading difficulties.

show abstract

Randomised Controlled Trial of Ultrasonographic Screening in Pregnancy

Cited by 164 publications

References 14 publications

Inadequate identification of small‐for‐gestational‐age fetuses at an urban teaching hospital

Inadequate identification of small‐for‐gestational‐age fetuses at an urban teaching hospital

Risk and security in childbirth

Screening for Learning Disabilities with Teacher Rating Scales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About