FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 330:570-572 February 24, 1994 Number 8 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article by Ewigman, B. G. PubMed Citation

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. . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

This article has been cited by other articles:

• John, A. M, Ruggieri, M., Ferner, R., Upadhyaya, M. (2000). A search for evidence of somatic mutations in the NF1 gene. J. Med. Genet. 37: 44-49 [Abstract] [Full Text]