Prenatal ultrasound screening and perinatal outcome

Steven H. Golde, Frederick N. Hegge, Joshua A. Copel, Lawrence D. Platt, Stuart Campbell, James E. Haddow, George J. Knight, Glenn E. Palomaki, Bernard Ewigman, James P. Crane, Fredric Frigoletto

    Research output: Contribution to journalLetterpeer-review

    3 Scopus citations


    To the Editor: Ewigman et al. (Sept. 16 issue)1 attempted to determine the efficacy of ultrasonography in pregnancy, but their methods obscured the issue of routine scanning. Of 55,744 women registering for obstetrical care, the authors excluded 32,317 (58 percent). Another 7897 (14 percent) were lost to follow-up or declined to participate in the study. Thus, of all the women, only 15,530 (28 percent) were actually studied. Of the half assigned to the control group (14 percent of the initial cohort), 45 percent underwent ultrasonography. The authors provided no data to explain why the women in this group underwent scanning.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)570-572
    Number of pages3
    JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
    Issue number8
    StatePublished - Feb 24 1994


    Dive into the research topics of 'Prenatal ultrasound screening and perinatal outcome'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this