Uptake of the 20-week scan and the detection rate of selected sonomarkers and structural congenital anomalies

[1]  M. Haak,et al.  Decision making in prenatal screening: money matters , 2015, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[2]  E. Spelten,et al.  Factors affecting the uptake of prenatal screening tests for congenital anomalies : A multicenter prospective cohort study , 2014 .

[3]  J. Bensing,et al.  Explaining variation in Down’s syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[4]  J. Twisk,et al.  Evaluation of the introduction of the national Down syndrome screening program in the Netherlands: age-related uptake of prenatal screening and invasive diagnostic testing. , 2014, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[5]  R. Snijders,et al.  Relationship of isolated single umbilical artery to fetal growth, aneuploidy and perinatal mortality: systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2013, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[6]  R. Snijders,et al.  Low uptake of the combined test in the Netherlands – which factors contribute? , 2012, Prenatal diagnosis.

[7]  A. Bos,et al.  Outcome of infants presenting with echogenic bowel in the second trimester of pregnancy , 2012, Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[8]  A. Souka,et al.  Evaluation of a two-step ultrasound examination protocol for the detection of major fetal structural defects , 2012, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[9]  N. Knoers,et al.  From Karyotyping to Array-CGH in Prenatal Diagnosis , 2011, Cytogenetic and Genome Research.

[10]  A. Ebrashy.  Controversial Ultrasound Findings in Mid-Trimester Pregnancy , 2011 .

[11]  K. Nicolaides,et al.  Challenges in the diagnosis of fetal non‐chromosomal abnormalities at 11–13 weeks , 2011, Prenatal diagnosis.

[12]  Derin Ma.  Hyperechogenic fetal bowel: an ultrasonographic marker for adverse fetal and neonatal outcome? , 2011 .

[13]  D. Oepkes,et al.  [Sonomarkers: subtle ultrasound findings in the 20-week ultrasound examination, which have a low association with some chromosomal and non-chromosomal abnormalities in the fetus]. , 2008, Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde.

[14]  R. Granese,et al.  The Value of Single Umbilical Artery in the Prediction of Fetal Aneuploidy: Findings in 12,672 Pregnant Women , 2007, Ultrasound quarterly.

[15]  P. Taipale,et al.  Two‐stage ultrasonography in screening for fetal anomalies at 13–14 and 18–22 weeks of gestation , 2004, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[16]  K. Lakhoo,et al.  Follow‐up of children with isolated fetal echogenic bowel with particular reference to bowel‐related symptoms , 2004, Prenatal diagnosis.

[17]  P. Taipale,et al.  Learning Curve in Ultrasonographic Screening for Selected Fetal Structural Anomalies in Early Pregnancy , 2003, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[18]  R. Snijders,et al.  Fetal echogenic bowel: parameters to be considered in differential diagnosis , 2000, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[19]  Y. Ville,et al.  Feasibility of the second‐trimester fetal ultrasound examination in an unselected population at 18, 20 or 22 weeks of pregnancy: a randomized trial , 1999, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.