The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Original Article
Volume 329:821-827 September 16, 1993 Number 12
NextNext

Effect of Prenatal Ultrasound Screening on Perinatal Outcome
Bernard G. Ewigman, James P. Crane, Fredric D. Frigoletto, Michael L. LeFevre, Raymond P. Bain, Donald McNellis, for The RADIUS Study Group

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text

Commentary
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background Many clinicians advocate routine ultrasound screening during pregnancy to detect congenital anomalies, multiple-gestation pregnancies, fetal growth disorders, placental abnormalities, and errors in the estimation of gestational age. However, it is not known whether the detection of these conditions through screening leads to interventions that improve perinatal outcome.

Methods We conducted a randomized trial involving 15,151 pregnant women at low risk for perinatal problems to determine whether ultrasound screening decreased the frequency of adverse perinatal outcomes. The women randomly assigned to the ultrasound-screening group underwent one sonographic examination at 15 to 22 weeks of gestation and another at 31 to 35 weeks. The women in the control group underwent ultrasonography only for medical indications, as identified by their physicians. Adverse perinatal outcome was defined as fetal death, neonatal death, or neonatal morbidity such as intraventricular hemorrhage.

Results The mean numbers of sonograms obtained per woman in the ultrasound-screening and control groups were 2.2 and 0.6, respectively. The rate of adverse perinatal outcome was 5.0 percent among the infants of the women in the ultrasound-screening group and 4.9 percent among the infants of the women in the control group (relative risk, 1.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 1.2; P = 0.85). The rates of preterm delivery and the distribution of birth weights were nearly identical in the two groups. The ultrasonographic detection of congenital anomalies had no effect on perinatal outcome. There were no significant differences between the groups in perinatal outcome in the subgroups of women with post-date pregnancies, multiple-gestation pregnancies, or infants who were small for gestational age.

Conclusions Screening ultrasonography did not improve perinatal outcome as compared with the selective use of ultrasonography on the basis of clinician judgment.


Source Information

From the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia (B.G.E., M.L.L.); the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis (J.P.C.); the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston (F.D.F.); the Biostatistics Center, George Washington University, Rockville, Md. (R.P.B.); and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md. (D.M.). The investigators and institutions that participated in the Routine Antenatal Diagnostic Imaging with Ultrasound (RADIUS) trial are listed in the Appendix.

Address reprint requests to Dr. Ewigman at MA303 Health Sciences Center, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri Health Sciences Center, 1 Hospital Dr., Columbia, MO 65212.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Prenatal Ultrasound Screening and Perinatal Outcome
Golde S. H., Hegge F. N., Copel J. A., Platt L. D., Campbell S., Haddow J. E., Knight G. J., Palomaki G. E., Ewigman B., Crane J. P., Frigoletto F.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 1994; 330:570-572, Feb 24, 1994. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.