4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Screening for Down syndrome: changing practice of obstetricians

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.12.027

关键词

Down syndrome; first-trimester screen; maternal serum screen; nuchal translucency; questionnaire

资金

  1. PHS HHS [R60 MC 05674] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the impact of American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines on the practices and knowledge of obstetricians regarding screening for Down syndrome 1 year later. STUDY DESIGN: A questionnaire on Down syndrome screening was mailed to 968 ACOG Fellows and Junior Fellows. RESULTS: The response rate was 53%. The majority (95%) of respondents offer Down syndrome screening to all pregnant patients; 70% of general obstetricians offer the first-trimester screen and 86% the quad screen. Almost two-thirds (63%) of respondents are offering patients >= 1 combination of first- and second-trimester screening tests. For women aged < 35 years, 70% offer amniocentesis selectively and 15% routinely. Chorionic villus sampling is offered less frequently. Respondents who more closely read the bulletin were more likely to say their practice had changed, answered more knowledge questions correctly, and felt more qualified to counsel patients. Most (85%) obstetricians personally counsel patients about Down syndrome risk and screening tests. The majority (94-95%) of respondents have access to adequate resources for screening within a 90-minute drive. CONCLUSION: Obstetricians have adopted a new paradigm for Down syndrome screening. First-trimester screening has been incorporated into prenatal care. Experience with these current screening tests will likely influence future guidelines and challenge the long-standing tradition of offering diagnostic testing based on maternal age. This study highlights the need for concise, unambiguous guidelines and a need to address unresolved issues in Down syndrome screening.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据