Write your message
Volume 4, Issue 1 (Winter 2019)                   jogcr 2019, 4(1): 12-15 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Shirazi M, Sarmadi S, Niromanesh S, Rahimi Sharbaf F, Sahebdel B, Golshahi F, et al . Assessment of the Sensitivity and Specificity of Screening Tests Performed in the First and Second Trimester in the Pregnant Women. jogcr. 2019; 4 (1) :12-15
URL: http://jogcr.com/article-1-224-en.html
1- Maternal, Fetal and Neonatal Research Centre, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, Maternal, Fetal and Neonatal Research Centre, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Maternal, Fetal and Neonatal Research Centre, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , m.rahmanzadeh1993@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (184 Views)

Background & Objective: Diagnosing fetal disorders and abnormalities in the early stages of pregnancy can prevent future adverse conditions for the infant and his/her family. This study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the first- and second-trimester screening tests for identifying fetal chromosomal disorders in pregnant women.
Materials & Methods: A total of 960 pregnant women participated in this retrospective cohort study that was performed at Yas Hospital. The participants’ mean age was 31.07±0.17 years. In the present study, all pregnant women, who referred to Yas Hospital for their first- and second-trimester screening tests, were studied from 2015 to 2017.
Results: Most of the participants (43.4%) were primigravida. The sensitivity of the first-trimester screening test was 70%, and its specificity was 80.3%. The sensitivity and specificity of the second-trimester screening test were 45% and 94.5%, respectively.
Conclusion: Despite recent advances in the prenatal field, the accuracy of screening tests may still vary depending on maternal age and other existing characteristics. Consequently, in parents consulting, the possibility of false positives and negatives should be considered in the tests.

Full-Text [PDF 201 kb]   (16 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (60 Views)  

Despite recent advances in the prenatal field, the accuracy of screening tests may still vary depending on maternal age and other existing characteristics. Consequently, in parents consulting, the possibility of false positives and negatives should be considered in the tests.


Systematic Review: Original Research | Subject: Maternal Fetal Medicine
Received: 2018/09/22 | Accepted: 2019/01/28 | Published: 2019/03/1
* Corresponding Author Address: Maternal, Fetal and Neonatal Research Centre, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

References
1. Smith-Lin C, Wang C, Hanchate A, Connors P, Yarrington CD. 250: Disparities in cell free fetal DNA aneuploidy screening uptake in an urban safety net hospital. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2018 Jan 1; 218(1): S161-2.
2. Hackshaw AK, Wald NJ. Assessment of the value of reporting partial screening results in prenatal screening for Downsyndrome. Prenat Diagn. 2011; 21: 737-740.
3. Ainsworth AJ, Holman MA, Codsi E, Wick M. Use of Genetic Testing after Abnormal Screening Ultrasound: A Descriptive Cohort Study. Gynecologic and obstetric investigation. 2018 Jan 1.
4. Mulvey S, Wallace EM. Reporting partial screening results: is it confusing and unsatisfactory [letter]? Prenat Diagn.2014; 22: 633-634. [DOI:10.1002/pd.360] [PMID]
5. Hackshaw A, Wald N. Estimation of risk in second trimester serum screening for Down syndrome among women who have already had first trimester screening [letter]. Prenat Diagn.2012; 22: 1051-1053. [DOI:10.1002/pd.426] [PMID]
6. Farag K, Hassan I, Ledger W. Prediction of preeclampsia: can it be achieved? Obstet Gyyynecol Survey 2014; 59(6): 464-482.
7. Niromanesh S, Mousavi Darzikolaei N, Rahimi-Shaarbaf F, Shirazi M. Pregnancy outcome in amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling: ten-year report. Tehran University Medical Journal TUMS Publications. 2016; 74(6): 400-7.
8. Hixson L, Goel S, Schuber P, Faltas V, Lee J, Narayakkadan A, et al. An overview on prenatal screening for chromosomal aberrations. Journal of laboratory automation. 2015; 20(5): 562-73. [DOI:10.1177/2211068214564595] [PMID]
9. Flessel MC, Lorey FW. The California Prenatal Screening Program:"options and choices" not "coercion and eugenics". Genetics in Medicine. 2011; 13(8): 711. [DOI:10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182272e25] [PMID]
10. Baer RJ, Flessel MC, Jelliffe-Pawlowski LL, Goldman S, Hudgins L, Hull AD, et al. Detection rates for aneuploidy by first-trimester and sequential screening. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2015; 126(4): 753-9. [DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001040] [PMID]
11. Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, Laurent LC, Ranzini AC, Brar H, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015; 372(17): 1589-97. [DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1407349] [PMID]
12. Shirazi M, Pooransari P, Rahimi FS, Niromanesh S, Sahebdel B, Shariat M, et al. Correlation of Maternal Stress Because of Positive Aneuploidy Screening Serum Analytes and Uterine Arteries' Doppler Ultrasound Index: A Prospective Cohort Study. International journal of fertility & sterility. 2019; 12(4): 329-34.
13. Shirazi M, Azadi F, Shariat M, Niromanesh S, Shirazi M. Effectiveness of stress management training on stress reduction in pregnant women. Tehran University Medical Journal TUMS Publications. 2016; 74(7): 493-9.
14. Pritchard JA, MacDonald PC, Gant NF. Williams' obstetrics: Appleton-Century-Crofts New York; 1980.
15. Shirazi M, Mohseni M, Ghajarzadeh M. Complications, indications and results of two screening methods: amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling. Academic Journal of Surgery. 2015 Oct 5; 2(1-2): 23-6.
16. Hixson L, Goel S, Schuber P, Faltas V, Lee J, Narayakkadan A, et al. An overview on prenatal screening for chromosomal aberrations. Journal of laboratory automation. 2015; 20(5): 562-73. [DOI:10.1177/2211068214564595] [PMID]
17. Mahboobeh Shirazi, Maryam Rabiei, Fatemeh Rahimi, Shirin Niroomanesh, Fateme Golshahi, Mitra Eftekhar Yazdi. Does Chorionic Villus Sampling Increase the Risk of Preeclampsia or Gestational Hypertension? International Journal of Preventive Medicine. February 20, 2019, IP: 5.114.76.241.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


© 2019 All Rights Reserved | Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Cancer Research (JOGCR)

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb | Piblisher: Farname Inc.