|
|
||||||||
From the Genetics Division, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, Jewish Hospital of St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
Abstract
Recent studies suggest that fetal biometry may allow recognition of pregnancies at risk for Down syndrome. Secondtrimester biparietal diameter (BFD)/femur length and observed- to-expected femur length ratios were examined in 48 chromosomally abnormal fetuses and compared with those of a control population composed of both low-risk patients (maternal age less than 35 years) and high-risk patients (maternal age 35 years or more). Biparietal diameter/femur length ratio correctly identified 18% of Down syndrome pregnancies with a positive predictive value of one in 169 and a false-positive rate of only 4%. When trisomies 21,18, and 13 were considered collectively, a sensitivity of 29% and a predictive value of one in 78 were achieved, with no increase in the false-positive rate (4%). Observed-to-expected femur length ratio was less valuable in detecting chromosomally abnormal fetuses. These data suggest that the BPD/femur length ratio holds promise as a screening tool for the antenatal detection of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Although encouraging, extrapolation of these results to other centers is not recommended without independent verification
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
B. T. PIERCE, E. G. HANCOCK, C. M. KOVAC, P. G. NAPOLITANO, R. F. HUME Jr, and B. C. CALHOUN Influence of Gestational Age and Maternal Height on Fetal Femur Length Calculations Obstet. Gynecol., May 1, 2001; 97(5): 742 - 746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Smith-Bindman, W. Hosmer, V. A. Feldstein, J. J. Deeks, and J. D. Goldberg Second-Trimester Ultrasound to Detect Fetuses With Down Syndrome: A Meta-analysis JAMA, February 28, 2001; 285(8): 1044 - 1055. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. K. Clark, T. L. Hurton, J. Stryker, and B. R. Benacerraf Antenatal Sonographic Findings in Trisomy 21 Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, November 1, 1992; 8(6): 316 - 319. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |