Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

You searched for:"Claudia Chiba"

We found (1) results for your search.
  • Original Article

    Ultrasound screening for Down syndrome using a multiparameter score

    Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 1998;20(9):525-531

    Summary

    Original Article

    Ultrasound screening for Down syndrome using a multiparameter score

    Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 1998;20(9):525-531

    DOI 10.1590/S0100-72031998000900006

    Views0

    Purpose: to calculate sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for multiparameter ultrasound scores for Down's syndrome. Patients and Methods: sensitivity and specificity for Down syndrome were calculated for ultrasound scores in a prospective study of ultrasound signs from 16 to 24 weeks in a high-risk population who denied invasive procedures after genetic counselling. The signs and scores were: femur/foot length < 0,9 (1), nuchal fold > 5 mm (2), pyelocaliceal diameter > 5 mm (1), nasal bones < 6 mm (1), absent or hypoplastic fifth median phalanx (1) and major structural malformations (2). Complete follow-up was obtained in each case. Genetic amniocentesis was proposed in the case of score 2 or more. Results: a total of 963 patients were examined from October 93 to December 97 at a mean gestational age of 19.6 (range 16 -24) weeks. Women's age ranged from 35 to 47 years (mean 38.8) and 18 Down syndrome cases were observed (1.8%). Sensitivity was 94.5% (17/18) for score 1 and 73% (13/18) for score 2 (false positive rate of 9.8% for score 1 and 4.1% for score 2). Individual sign sensitivity and specificity were: femur/foot = 16.7% (3/18) and 96.8% (915/945); nasal bones = 22.2% (4/18) and 92.1% (870/945); nuchal fold = 44.4% (8/18) and 96.5% (912/945); pyelic diameter = 38.9% (7/18) and 94.3% (891/945); absent phalanx = 22.2% (4/18) and 98.5% (912/945); malformation = 22.2% (4/18) and 98.2% (928/945). Conclusions: the overall sensitivity for score 1 was high but false positive rates were also high. For score 2, sensibility was still good (73%) and false positive rate was acceptable (4.1%). Positive and negative predictive values can be calculated for each prevalence (women's age). More cases are needed to reach final conclusions about this screening method (specially in a low-risk population) although this system has been useful for high-risk patients who deny invasive procedures.

    See more

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report -
correction
editorial
editorial -
letter
letter -
other -
rapid-communication
research-article
research-article -
review-article
review-article -
Section
Abstracts of Awarded Papers at the 50th Brazilian Congress of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Case Report
Case Report and Treatment
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Editorial
Editorial
Equipments and Methods
Erratum
Febrasgo Position Statement
Letter to the Editor
Methods and Techniques
Nota do Editor
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Original Articles
Previous Note
Relato de Caso
Relatos de Casos
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Teses
Review Article
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Thesis Abstract
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE