Premium
Biochemical screening for Down syndrome: patients' perception of risk
Author(s) -
O’Connell M.P,
Holding S,
Morgan R.J,
Lindow S.W
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
international journal of gynecology and obstetrics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.895
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1879-3479
pISSN - 0020-7292
DOI - 10.1016/s0020-7292(99)00165-4
Subject(s) - medicine , amniocentesis , triple test , test (biology) , retrospective cohort study , obstetrics , pregnancy , emergency medicine , pediatrics , surgery , prenatal diagnosis , paleontology , fetus , genetics , biology
Abstract Objectives: To determine the utility of the triple test in routine clinical practice and in addition to the document, the acceptability of a cut‐off of 1:250 for invasive testing. Design: Retrospective analysis of data from screening and invasive testing for Down syndrome over a 5‐year period in Hull Maternity Hospital. Computer‐based records were accessed and individual data drawn from case notes were analyzed. Results: 14 827 (78%) of all patients opted for the triple test. A positive result (1:250 or greater) was found in 586 (4%). Fifteen percent of this group refused further testing with amniocentesis. 0.08% requested amniocentesis despite a negative triple test result. Of the screened pregnancies the triple test and selective invasive testing identified nine out of 15 (60%) of Down syndrome cases. Conclusion: Sixty percent of Down syndrome pregnancies were identified with a 4% invasive testing rate. Fifteen percent of women who had a positive test did not agree with the cut‐off of 1:250 and therefore declined invasive testing. Invasive procedure complication rates do not equate with patients’ perception of Down syndrome.