| Factor Information | |
|---|---|
| Data ID | 3108 |
| Factor | percentage of missed prenatal screening of CHD in the worst case scenario |
| Description | N/A |
| Biomarker | NA |
| Classification | A2 (clinical factor - diagnosis) |
| Association | |
|---|---|
| Application | prognosis |
| Objective | The purpose of this study was to determine the relative importance of the 4-chamber view (4CV) compared with the outflow tract views (OFTVs) in prenatal screening for major congenital heart disease (CHD). |
| p Value | <0.001 |
| Conclusion | Similarly, in the worst case scenario, the 4CV compared poorly with the OFTVs in terms of the percentage of defects that theoretically would have been missed at midgestation (69% versus 38%; P <0.001). |
| Risk Factor | unknown |
| CHD Type | |
|---|---|
| ID | 651 |
| CHD Type | isolated CHD/non-isolated CHD |
| CHD Subtype | TOF/CoA/TGA/HLHS/VSD/AVC/TOF, APV/PA, IVS/EA, TVD/DORV/TAPVR/BAVC/UAVC/PS/AS, AA/IAA/PA, IVS/SV |
| Reference | |
|---|---|
| PMID | 19546331 |
| Year | 2009 |
| Title | Prenatal Screening for Major Congenital Heart Disease |
| Sample | ||
|---|---|---|
| Population | infants | |
| Source | patients' data | |
| Region | California, America | |
| Method | χ2 statistics | |
| Race | American | |
| Disease History | N/A | |
| Treatment History | prenatal screening | |
| Group | percentage of defects missed with 4CV at midgestation(Treatment) | percentage of defects missed with OFTVs at midgestation(Control) |
| Number | N/A | N/A |
| Age | N/A | N/A |
| Gender (Male: Female) | N/A | N/A |
| Marker Level | 0.69 | 0.38 |
