| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 [2] |
gpsyeyes
She's my world!!!
Member since 8/06 1184 total posts
Name:
Karen
|
Re: The Ultra Screen - to get or not to get
The only problem I have with not doing routine, non-invasive testing is that there are many problems that can be detected and "fixed" either during the pregnancy or right after. These tests give a good guide to the physician as to what they may be dealing with so they can plan the rest of the pregnancy and birth accordingly. For example, if one of the tests (Level II) showed a hole in the baby's heart that could be fixed while you were still pregnant, wouldn't you want to know about it to consider you next step? I know I want to know as much as I can. The Ultrascreen is not a "new" test. It has been used mainly in major university hospitals for many many years. The equipment has more recently been made available to smaller facilities because of the great results the hospitals have had with it. IMO, knowledge truly is power and ignorance is not bliss.
|
Posted 1/30/07 1:33 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
itsbabytime
LIF Adult
Member since 11/05 9644 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: The Ultra Screen - to get or not to get
Posted by gpsyeyes
The only problem I have with not doing routine, non-invasive testing is that there are many problems that can be detected and "fixed" either during the pregnancy or right after. These tests give a good guide to the physician as to what they may be dealing with so they can plan the rest of the pregnancy and birth accordingly. For example, if one of the tests (Level II) showed a hole in the baby's heart that could be fixed while you were still pregnant, wouldn't you want to know about it to consider you next step? I know I want to know as much as I can. The Ultrascreen is not a "new" test. It has been used mainly in major university hospitals for many many years. The equipment has more recently been made available to smaller facilities because of the great results the hospitals have had with it. IMO, knowledge truly is power and ignorance is not bliss.
Thank you for this information. See, I was not aware that this was the case. I did not realize that this test could show things that could be "fixed" while the baby was still inside. My doctor implied that the choice was basically would you have an amnio or not - because if not, no reason to do it.
I completely agree in most cases that knowledge is power but this is the first i was aware that the problems detected could be fixed - my doctor certainly did not say that. I assumed from the conversation that it would come down to a choice of termination of the pregnancy and that would be it.
Also, knowledge is only power when it is good knowledge-- which is why i am wondering what the percentage of false positives is. For ex., if you take the test - it shows something wrong, you get the amnio and everything is fine then you just risked miscarriage for NOTHING. In the alternative, if you don't get the amnio, you are worrying for seven months which can't be good for the baby only to find out everything is fine. If I knew the risk of a false positve was vey very small i probably wouldn't be having second thoughts about this test. but from what was implied about the test suggesting something wrong actually meaning something is wrong got me worried.
Did anyone's dr. give them statistics on this?
Message edited 1/30/2007 1:59:52 PM.
|
| Posted 1/30/07 1:55 PM |
| |
|
Kidsaplenty
Sister love
Member since 2/06 5971 total posts
Name:
Stephanie
|
Re: The Ultra Screen - to get or not to get
I did the test with my second DD. I had a false positive (it was on they high end of normal). I refused an amnio, but I was scared the rest of my pregnancy. I would't get it done again. IMO if you know you wouldn't terminate if there was something wrong there is no need for it.
|
| Posted 1/30/07 2:11 PM |
| |
|
smdl
I love Gary too..on a plate!
Member since 5/06 32461 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: The Ultra Screen - to get or not to get
After meeting the genetic counselor and my Dr., it became apperent that this is NOT an acurate test. This is just a screening.
Since we are both older and wanted to know what we would be facing, I did an amnio. So, I did not do an ultrascreen and AFP. There was no need. I think I would have been worried the entire pregnancy if I had a false positive.
|
| Posted 1/30/07 2:15 PM |
| |
|
gpsyeyes
She's my world!!!
Member since 8/06 1184 total posts
Name:
Karen
|
Re: The Ultra Screen - to get or not to get
this link is for information from the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists.
ACOG
Message edited 1/30/2007 2:28:59 PM.
|
| Posted 1/30/07 2:28 PM |
| |
|
Lillykat
going along for the ride...
Member since 5/05 16253 total posts
Name:
|
Re: The Ultra Screen - to get or not to get
Posted by greeneyes361708
I did the test with my second DD. I had a false positive (it was on they high end of normal). I refused an amnio, but I was scared the rest of my pregnancy. I would't get it done again. IMO if you know you wouldn't terminate if there was something wrong there is no need for it.
These tests are not designed for people to know so that they can terminate the pregnancy they are designed to give you an idea of potential problems for your baby – there are things that can be done inside the uterus or god forbid things that can be done the minute they are born if it is needed – if you don’t get the test you might not know immediately of a specific problem and by the time you know it might be harder to address. Additionally, I look at it as if you know of a problem you can prepare yourself on how to best take special care of your newborn with whatever their particular needs are. Many parents who don’t find out are then are shocked when they have an infant with a problem don’t know how to deal/care for the specific issue. If you know you can get support and educate yourself so you can best help your child. IMO that is the value of doing these tests.
|
| Posted 1/30/07 3:24 PM |
| |
|
Eleanor
LIF Adult
Member since 2/06 2223 total posts
Name:
Ellie
|
Re: The Ultra Screen - to get or not to get
I totally agree with gpsyeyes. It is important to know a lot of these issues to have the right people in the delivery room with you and to make the decisions before, not while you are exhausted from having a baby and labor, etc.
That being said, my office did give me statistics, although I cannot remember them (I have an appoint tonight and will ask). I do remember that they do not tell me the results of either test individually, instead they take blood 2xs and do the ultrascreen and look at all the results together as a whole picture. I do remember that the lowest statistic was 80 something % and doing it the way my office does it brings it into the mid 90's for accuracy.
|
| Posted 1/30/07 3:30 PM |
| |
|
Eleanor
LIF Adult
Member since 2/06 2223 total posts
Name:
Ellie
|
Re: The Ultra Screen - to get or not to get
Sorry I didn't post this last night - but I was so tired when I got home. This is what I found out.
there are three ways OB's in this area do this type of test (A lot of areas in the country will only do it if there is a family history or based on the mother's age)
1. The Quad Screen (this was the AFP - with one more thing added - not sure what)
2. The Ultrascreen and Sonogram - I hope I get this right - the ultrascreen is the finger prick test and then they measure the folds with a sono - (NT test)
Both these have low 80% accuracy.
3. The integrated test (which I believe combines many of these tests) has a 92% accuracy rate
I did a search for this because I was a bit confused with all the tests and came up with this:
ultrascreen link
Hope this helps.
ETA:
another link
Message edited 1/31/2007 8:12:50 AM.
|
| Posted 1/31/07 8:10 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] |
