
doi: 10.1002/pd.406
pmid: 12224069
AbstractIt appears from current evidence that the most effective screening strategy for Down syndrome will involve a combination of first trimester nuchal translucency and serum biochemistry, whether performed in the first or second trimester. The aim of this study was to determine the optimum gestation based upon menstrual dates at which to schedule nuchal translucency (NT) measurement for the evaluation of fetal Down syndrome risk. Five thousand eight hundred and thirty‐five pregnancies had an ultrasound scan scheduled between 11 and 14 completed weeks of gestation based upon either the last menstrual period (n = 3199) or a prior ultrasound scan (n = 2636). For last menstrual period‐based ultrasound scans, with advancing gestation the frequency of missed miscarriage significantly decreased (p = 0.009, chi squared test), as did the need to reschedule a further scan because the gestation of the scheduled scan was too early to measure NT (p < 0.0001, Chi‐squared test). In contrast, with advancing gestation the rate of unsuccessful NT measurement because the crown–rump length (CRL) was greater than 84 mm significantly increased (p < 0.0001, Chi‐squared test). Of the women who had had an earlier ultrasound, 42 (1.6%) had a missed miscarriage and 9 (0.3%) were over gestation at the time of the NT scan. These data suggest that when only the last menstrual period is known the optimum time to schedule a nuchal translucency measurement is at 12 to 13 weeks' gestation. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Adult, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Time Factors, Pregnancy, Humans, Mass Screening, Female, Down Syndrome, Menstrual Cycle, Neck, Ultrasonography, Prenatal
Adult, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Time Factors, Pregnancy, Humans, Mass Screening, Female, Down Syndrome, Menstrual Cycle, Neck, Ultrasonography, Prenatal
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 18 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
