Journal of Perinatal Medicine
Official Journal of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine
Editor-in-Chief: Dudenhausen, Joachim W.
Editorial Board Member: / Bancalari, Eduardo / Milner, Anne / Genc, Mehmet R. / Chervenak, Frank A. / Chappelle, Joseph / Bergmann, Renate L. / Bernardes, J.F. / Bevilacqua, G. / Blickstein, Isaac / Cabero Roura, Luis / Carbonell-Estrany, Xavier / Carrera, Jose M. / D`Addario, Vincenzo / D'Alton, MD, Mary E. / Dimitrou, G. / Grunebaum, Amos / Hentschel, Roland / Köpcke, W. / Kawabata, Ichiro / Keirse, Marc J.N.C. / Kurjak M.D., Asim / Lee, Ben H. / Levene, Malcolm / Lockwood, Charles J. / Marsal, Karel / Makatsariya, Alexander / Nishida, Hiroshi / Ogata, Edward / Papp, Zoltán / Pejaver, Ranjan Kumar / Pooh, Ritsuko K. / Romero, Roberto / Saugstad, Ola D. / Schenker, Joseph G. / Sen, Cihat / Seri, Istvan / Vetter, Klaus / Winn, Hung N. / Young, Bruce K. / Zimmermann, Roland
IMPACT FACTOR increased in 2015: 1.798
Rank 46 out of 120 in category Pediatrics in the 2015 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2014: 0.731
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2014: 0.687
Impact per Publication (IPP) 2014: 1.483
Combined first trimester screening for trisomy 21: lack of agreement between risk calculation methods
Citation Information: Journal of Perinatal Medicine. Volume 34, Issue 2, Pages 162–165, ISSN (Online) 1619-3997, ISSN (Print) 0300-5577, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/JPM.2006.029, March 2006
- August 5, 2005
- November 2, 2005
- Published Online:
Objective: To call attention to differences in first trimester risk estimates for trisomy 21, as calculated by two different software packages.
Methods: A total of ninety-four pregnant women who had a first trimester risk assessment for trisomy 21 that was based on maternal age, biochemical analysis and a nuchal translucency (NT) measurement. Two commonly used software packages were used for the estimation of individual risks (i.e. Wallac-Perkin-Elmer® software and Fetal Medicine Foundation® software).
Results: Risk estimates derived from each software programme were strikingly different. In each case the discrepancy in reported magnitude of risk resulted from disparities between the two calculation methods for the assessment of the individual risk for trisomy 21. The disparities in risk estimates can be explained by significant differences in reported likelihood ratios for biochemical analyses (P=0.01), NT measurements (P<0.0001) and both screening parameters combined P=0.003).
Conclusion: It is illustrated that the lack of agreement between these risk calculation methods could give rise to major counselling problems. In order to avoid confusion, there is a need for estimating individual risks of trisomy 21 in a standardized way. It is proposed to select a set of parameters that have a proven track record as judged by detection and false positive rates and then use that set exclusively, while simultaneously monitoring its performance.
Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.