Maternal Serum Screening Markers and Adverse Outcome: A New Perspective
AbstractThere have been a number of studies evaluating the association of aneuploidy serum markers with adverse pregnancy outcome. More recently, the development of potential treatments for these adverse outcomes as well as the introduction of cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) screening for aneuploidy necessitates a re-evaluation of the benefit of serum markers in the identification of adverse outcomes. Analysis of the literature indicates that the serum markers tend to perform better in identifying pregnancies at risk for the more severe but less frequent form of individual pregnancy complications rather than the more frequent but milder forms of the condition. As a result, studies which evaluate the association of biomarkers with a broad definition of a given condition may underestimate the ability of such markers to identify pregnancies that are destined to develop the more severe form of the condition. Consideration of general population screening using cffDNA solely must be weighed against the fact that traditional screening using serum markers enables detection of severe pregnancy complications, not detectable with cffDNA, of which many may be amenable to treatment options.
Scifeed alert for new publicationsNever miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
- Get alerts for new papers matching your research
- Find out the new papers from selected authors
- Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
- Define your Scifeed now
Krantz, D.; Hallahan, T.; Janik, D.; Carmichael, J. Maternal Serum Screening Markers and Adverse Outcome: A New Perspective. J. Clin. Med. 2014, 3, 693-712.
Krantz D, Hallahan T, Janik D, Carmichael J. Maternal Serum Screening Markers and Adverse Outcome: A New Perspective. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2014; 3(3):693-712.Chicago/Turabian Style
Krantz, David; Hallahan, Terrence; Janik, David; Carmichael, Jonathan. 2014. "Maternal Serum Screening Markers and Adverse Outcome: A New Perspective." J. Clin. Med. 3, no. 3: 693-712.