First trimester Down syndrome screening is less effective and the number of invasive procedures is increased in women younger than 35 years of age

, , &
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 19 (2):324-326 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01826.x

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,779

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

First‐trimester Down syndrome screening in women younger than 35 years old and cost‐effectiveness analysis in Taiwan population.Ching-Yu Chou, Fon-Jou Hsieh, Mei-Leng Cheong, Fa-Kung Lee, Bo-Quing She & Ming-Song Tsai - 2009 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 15 (5):789-796.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of triple test in second-trimester maternal serum screening for Down’s syndrome: an experience from Taiwan with decreasing birth rate but increasing population of old pregnant women.Hsiao-Lin Hwa, Ming-Fang Yen, Chen-Li Lin, Tsang-Ming Ko, Fon-Jou Hsieh & Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen - 2008 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 14 (2):191-197.
Can safety assurance procedures in the food industry be used to evaluate a medical screening programme? The application of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system to an antenatal serum screening programme for Down's syndrome. Stage 2: overcoming the hazards in programme delivery.M. Clare Derrington, Elizabeth S. Draper, Ronald T. Hsu & Jennifer J. Kurinczuk - 2003 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 9 (1):49-57.
Can safety assurance procedures in the food industry be used to evaluate a medical screening programme? The application of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system to an antenatal serum screening programme for Down's syndrome. Stage 1: identifying significant hazards.M. Clare Derrington, Janet D. Glencross, Elizabeth S. Draper, Ronald T. Hsu & Jennifer J. Kurinczuk - 2003 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 9 (1):39-47.
Attitudes to prenatal screening among Norwegian citizens: liberality, ambivalence and sensitivity.Morten Magelssen, Berge Solberg, Magne Supphellen & Guttorm Haugen - 2018 - BMC Medical Ethics 19 (1):1-8.
Why NIPT should be publicly funded.Eline Maria Bunnik, Adriana Kater-Kuipers, Robert-Jan H. Galjaard & Inez de Beaufort - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (11):783-784.
Currents in Contemporary Bioethics: Waiving Informed Consent to Prenatal Screening and Diagnosis? Problems with Paradoxical Negotiation in Surrogacy Contracts.Katherine Drabiak-Syed - 2011 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (3):559-564.
Delineating the Scope of NIPT: Ethics Meets Practice.Eline M. Bunnik - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics 22 (2):34-36.
First trimester prenatal diagnosis: earlier is not necessarily better.J. A. Boss - 1994 - Journal of Medical Ethics 20 (3):146-151.
Risk prediction for Down's syndrome in young pregnant women using maternal serum biomarkers: determination of cut‐off risk from receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.Hsiao-Lin Hwa, Tsang-Ming Ko, Fon-Jou Hsieh, Ming-Fang Yen, Kai-Pei Chou & Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen - 2007 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 13 (2):254-258.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-24

Downloads
28 (#556,056)

6 months
4 (#1,004,582)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references