Second trimester ultrasound screening performed by midwives; sensitivity for detection of fetal anomalies

References

• Donald I, Brown TG. Demonstration of tissue interfaces within the body by ultrasonic echo sounding. Br J Radiol 1961; 34: 539–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundén B. On the diagnostic value of ultrasound in obstetrics and gynecology. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1964; 43: suppl 6: 7–191.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell S, Johnstone FD, Holt EM, May P Anencephaly: early ultrasonic diagnosis and active management. Lancet 1972; 2: 1226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saari-Kemppainen A, Karjalainen O, Ylöstalo P, Heinonen O. Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancy. Lancet 1990; 336: 387–91.
   Google Scholar
• Luck CA. Value of routine ultrasound scanning at 19 weeks: a four year study of 8849 deliveries. BMJ 1992; 304: 1474–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chitty LS, Hunt GH, Moore J, Lobb MO. Effectiveness of routine ultra-sonography in detecting fetal structural abnormalities in a low risk population. BMJ 1991; 303: 1165–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi S, Schaaps JP, De Havay P, Coulon R, Defoort P. End-result of routine ultrasound screening for congenital anomalies: The Belgian multicenter study 1984–92. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 5: 366–71.
   Google Scholar
• Baronciani D, Scaglia C, Corchia C, Torcetta F, Mastroiacovos P. Ultrasonography in pregnancy and fetal abnormalities: Screening or diagnostic test? IPIMC 1986–1990 register data. Prenat Diagn 1995; 15: 1101–8.
   Google Scholar
• Crane JP, LeFevre ML, Winborn RC, Evans JK, Ewigman BG, Bain RP et al. and the RADIUS study group. A randomised trial of prenatal ultrasonographic screening. Impact on detection, management, and outcome of anomalous fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 171: 392–9.
   Google Scholar
• Bucher HC, Schmidt JG. Does routine ultrasound scanning improve outcome in pregnancy? Meta-analysis of various outcome measures. BMJ 1993; 307: 13–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leivo T, Tuominen A, Saari-Kemppainen A, Ylöstalo P, Karjalainen O, Heinonen OP. Cost-effectiveness of one-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a report from the Helsinki ultrasound trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7: 309–14.
   Google Scholar
• Brent RL, Beckman DA, Landel CP. Clinical teratology. Curr Opin Pediatr 1993; 5: 201–11.
   Google Scholar
• Lys F, De Wals P, Borlee-Grimee I, Billiet A, Vincotte-Mols M, Levi S. Evaluation of routine ultrasound examination for the prenatal diagnosis of malformation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1989; 30: 101–9.
   Google Scholar
• Eurenius K, Axelsson O, Eriksson L. Second trimester routine ultrasound and abnormal findings. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996; 75: 235–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giertz G, Valentin L. Resultat av en enkät angående rutinmässig ultraljudsundersökning av gravida kvinnor. SFOG:s medlemsblad 1993; no 4: 16–17 (in Swedish).
   Google Scholar
• Persson PH, Weldner BM. Normal range growth curves for biparietal diameter, occipito-frontal diameter, mean ab-dominai diameters and femur length. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1986; 65: 759–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson M, Zetterström R. Environment and epidemiology of congenital malformations. Acta Pediatr Scand Suppl 1994; 394: 30–4.
   Google Scholar
• Sharland GK, Allen LD. Screening for congenital heart disease prenatally. Results of a 2 1/2 year study in the South East Thames region. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 220–5.
   Google Scholar
• Tegnander E, Eik-Nes S H, Johansen O J, Linker D T. Prenatal detection of heart defects at the routine fetal examination at 18 weeks in a non-selected population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 5: 372–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chitty LS. Ultrasound screening for fetal abnormalities. Prenat Diagn 1995; 15: 1241–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skupski DW, Newman S, Edersheim T, Milton Huston J, Udom-Rice I, Chervenak FA et al. The impact of routine obstetric ultrasonographic screening in a low-risk population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 1142–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norwegian consensus conference on ultrasound screening in pregnancy. Norges Forskningsråd 1995 (in Norwegian).
   Google Scholar