AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 89, Issue 2 160-163, Copyright © 1999 by American Public Health Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kuppermann, M
Right arrow Articles by Washington, A E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kuppermann, M
Right arrow Articles by Washington, A E
Who should be offered prenatal diagnosis? The 35-year-old question.

M Kuppermann, J D Goldberg, R F Nease, Jr and A E Washington

Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, San Francisco, CA 94143-0856, USA. miriamvkuppermann@quickmail.ucsf.edu

Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal disorders is generally offered to women who will be 35 years or older at the time of delivery or who have been determined via serum screening to be at risk similar to that of a woman older than 35 years. This age threshold was based on 4 major rationales that reflect considerations of resources and effectiveness. In this paper, we explore the current screening recommendations and consider new information that calls the 35-years threshold into question. We conclude that guidelines regarding use of prenatal diagnosis account for the preferences of the individual patient as well as for individual risk.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
A. D. Lyerly, L. M. Mitchell, E. M. Armstrong, L. H. Harris, R. Kukla, M. Kuppermann, and M. O. Little
Risks, Values, and Decision Making Surrounding Pregnancy
Obstet. Gynecol., April 1, 2007; 109(4): 979 - 984.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
B. Khoshnood, C. De Vigan, V. Vodovar, G. Breart, F. Goffinet, and B. Blondel
Advances in Medical Technology and Creation of Disparities: The Case of Down Syndrome
Am J Public Health, December 1, 2006; 96(12): 2139 - 2144.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
R. L. Berkowitz, J. Roberts, and H. Minkoff
Challenging the Strategy of Maternal Age-Based Prenatal Genetic Counseling
JAMA, March 22, 2006; 295(12): 1446 - 1448.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
M. KUPPERMANN, R. F. NEASE Jr, L. A. LEARMAN, E. GATES, B. BLUMBERG, and A. E. WASHINGTON
Procedure-Related Miscarriages and Down Syndrome-Affected Births: Implications for Prenatal Testing Based on Women's Preferences
Obstet. Gynecol., October 1, 2000; 96(4): 511 - 516.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
A. B. Caughey, A E. Washington, V. Gildengorin, and M. Kuppermann
Assessment of Demand for Prenatal Diagnostic Testing Using Willingness to Pay
Obstet. Gynecol., January 1, 1980; 103(3): 539 - 545.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the American Public Health Association