SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Levi S. Screening for congenital malformations by ultrasound. In Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, KurjakA (ed.). The Parthenon Publishing Group: London, UK, 1998; 587609.Levi S. Ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis: polemics around routine ultrasound screening for second trimester fetal malformations. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22: 285295.
  • 2
    Stoll C, Alembik Y, Dott B, Roth MP, Finck S. Evaluation of prenatal diagnosis by a registry of congenial anomalies. Prenat Diagn 1992; 12: 263270.
  • 3
    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: 11011108.
  • 4
    Grandjean H, Larroque D, Levi S, and the Eurofetus team. The performance of routine ultrasonographic screening of pregnancies in the Eurofetus study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 446454.
  • 5
    Clementi E, Stoll C. The Euroscan study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 297300.
  • 6
    Levi S, Grandjean H, Lebrun T. Report on Eurofetus or “Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for fetal malformation by ultrasound—an evaluation of antenatal mass screening by ultrasound for the diagnosis of birth defects”. European Union, DGXII, Comac Health Services Research (Concerted action XII-E, Contract No. MR4*-0225-B. Feb. 1990.), 1995.
  • 7
    EUROCAT Working Group. Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies in Europe 1980–1999: Report 8. EUROCAT Central Registry, University of Ulster, Northern Ireland BT370QB. http://www.eurocat.ulster.ac.uk [Accessed 7 July 2003].
  • 8
    Zhang WH, Levi S, Alexander S, Viart P, Grandjean H, and the Eurofetus study group. Sensitivity of ultrasound screening for congenital anomalies in unselected pregnancies. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 2002; 50: 571580.
  • 9
    Gillerot T. European Registers of Congenital Abnormalities and Twins (EUROCAT): register Hainaut-Namur 1991–95. Loverval, Belgium, 1995. (Interested readers can access this report by writing to the author at: The Institute of Pathology, Loverval, Belgium).
  • 10
    Papp Z, Toth-Pal E, Papp C. Impact of prenatal midtrimester screening on the prevalence of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective epidemiological study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 6: 320326.
  • 11
    Stoll C, Dott B, Alembik Y, Roth MP. Evaluation of routine prenatal diagnosis by a registry of congenital anomalies. Prenat Diagn 1995; 15: 791800.
  • 12
    Levi S, Zhang WH, Alexander S, Viart P, Grandjean H, and the Eurofetus team. Short-term outcome of isolated and associated congenital heart defects in relation to antenatal ultrasound screening Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 532538.
  • 13
    Waitzman NJ, Scheffier RM, Romano PS. The Cost of Birth Defects: Estimates of the Value of Prevention. University Press of America, Inc.: Lanham, MD, 1996; 261.
  • 14
    Levi S, Chervenak FA. Ultrasound screening for fetal anomalies: is it worth it? Screening revisited after the Eurofetus data. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1998; 847:pp 256.
  • 15
    Waitzman NJ, Romano PS. Reduced costs of congenital anomalies from fetal ultrasound: are they sufficient to justify routine screening in the United States? Ann N Y Acad Sci 1998; 847: 141153.
  • 16
    Romano PS, Waitzman NJ. Can decision analysis help us decide whether ultrasound screening for fetal anomalies is worth it? Ann N Y Acad Sci 1998; 847: 154172.
  • 17
    Buechler EJ. Managed care and ultrasound for the diagnosis of fetal anomalies. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1998; 847: 181184.