The American Medical Association opposes routine ultrasound screening - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 21 Old 12-09-2009, 07:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
Riverbeauty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bloomington, IN.
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://www.planetc1.com/cgi-bin/n/v....&id=1155156248

Quote:
What immediate biologic effects occur when ultrasound radiation interacts with living human tissue? The focused beam of high energy causes two distinct effects in the body, both of which generate heat. The first is a local temperature rise of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit in the radiated tissue. This rise is presumed to be insignificant.

The second is cavitation, a process whereby small pockets of gas present in human tissue vibrate rapidly and then collapse. Temperatures in the gas are said to reach many thousands of degrees Celsius. This alters normal human chemistry in the vicinity of the generated heat. A number of abnormal, potentially toxic chemicals are produced in this way. The effects of this toxicity on the rapidly dividing cells of a growing baby are not known.

False positive findings in routine ultrasound scans scare the heck out of pregnant moms all too frequently. This causes anxiety, unnecessary and invasive interventions, increased cesarean births, and fewer babies carried full-term.

“Although we now have sufficient scientific data to be able to say that routine prenatal ultrasound scanning has no effectiveness and may very well carry risks, it would be naive to think that routine use will not continue,” wrote Marsden Wagner.

The American Medical Association opposes routine ultrasound screening and has clearly listed those ultrasound applications considered unnecessary and to be avoided.

At the top of the bad things list is using ultrasound to confirm the baby’s gender. This, of course, is the major reason modern couples are interested in ultrasound scans in the first place.

Other no-nos include using ultrasound to determine the age of the baby, determine the baby’s size, confirm multiple pregnancies, and determine the position of the baby in the womb. I am told these precautions are pretty much universally ignored in the doctor offices of America.

As my wife commented, “Those are the exact reasons I was given when I was pregnant and told to go get an ultrasound!”

Alexander 2-15-07
Lirum 3-17-10
Riverbeauty is offline  
#2 of 21 Old 12-09-2009, 07:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
Riverbeauty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bloomington, IN.
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wasn't aware of this information... in fact I have had 5 ultrasounds to date with this pregnancy for many of the reasons listed in this article as things the AMA opposes the technology for.

Alexander 2-15-07
Lirum 3-17-10
Riverbeauty is offline  
#3 of 21 Old 12-09-2009, 07:47 PM
 
justamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 1,046
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Same here! I've had six, and the first 5 were to determine sizing (I have a hx of miscarriage and the size of baby didn't match with my dates...of course at my 21 week scan the baby measured right on target with my lmp date). The last was the routine anatomy scan.

I think a big part of it is doctor's have become so used to using the u/s machine as a crutch that they feel they need them to do many of the things they used to do routinely without them. Kind of like relying too heavily on c-sections for breech births, which used to be commonly done vaginally.

Deni. I'm the liberal, Jesus-loving, hippie freak your mama warned you about. Expecting a cinco surprise, spring 2014!
justamama is offline  
#4 of 21 Old 12-09-2009, 09:06 PM
 
ChristyM26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kannapolis, NC
Posts: 1,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
They don't mention doppler though, and I thought it was basically the same thing. So, it looks like they're saying u/s are bad but doppler is ok which makes no sense. Either they're both bad or they're both ok.

Also, when they reference effectiveness, what are they referring to? Are they suggesting that it's not helpful for dating or for determining gender or both? I agree that false positives are frightening for moms but they're looking at this and basically saying that all u/s are bad. And while I agree that it would be far better if women had fewer there are certainly positive uses for an u/s. Not to mention, if you're checking cervical length routinely to monitor for ptl they're basically saying you're damaging your child.

I wish they cited some of the studies they reference. I'd like to read some of them and see what chemicals they believe are generated, how much and what the temperature is and how they know this.

Mama to Aeden, : my little NICU grad and Conner and Liam () my precious twins. is due mid April!
ChristyM26 is offline  
#5 of 21 Old 12-09-2009, 09:14 PM
 
MyZymurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just to clarify... the AMA recommends against "unnecessary exposure"... which is really their stand on just about everything. LOL. If it isn't necessary to do a medical procedure, then don't do it.

Some have taken this relatively neutral and non-surprising stance on ultrasounds and turned it into something more than it is. (I'm not saying you are doing that, River!! You're just accurately reporting what is out there on the Internet.)

There are many studies on the safety of ultrasounds, even printed in the the AMA's own journal (JAMA). You can google and find them. Most are clearly showing absolutely no risk in ultrasounds. But even the reassuring ones can be less than reassuring sometimes:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...ct/293/3/286-b
(This study, for example, addresses a previous study. It shows no long term growth restriction after high fetal exposure to ultrasounds at age one and beyond. But... what about before one? Is that question irrelevant if there is no long-term risk or even difference?)


Those of us with high-risk pregnancies often face multiple ultrasounds, and the minimal potential/theoretical risks of getting an ultrasound in these cases doesn't even come close to outweighing the benefits of monitoring a dangerous situation. I'm just saying this because I don't want high-risk mamas (like me) to feel even MORE stressed out. There are cases where ultrasound monitoring is vital to the health of the baby and the mother.

What the AMA would say they are against, for example, is an ultrasound done to just confirm the gender. That is a medically unnecessary medical procedure. (Except perhaps in the case of genetic sex-linked diseases...) But we should be clear that the AMA DOES recommend mid-pregnancy ultrasounds for everyone. But a doctor that does them every visit for a low-risk pregnancy is definitely going against the AMA recommendations.

Now, not everyone agrees with the AMA all the time, but that's a different post.

I hope that clarified it - at least my understanding of it from looking into it a while back.

Mama and co-parent to our beautiful DS (08/08) and our mighty strong DD (04/10) . Life is good.
MyZymurgy is offline  
#6 of 21 Old 12-09-2009, 09:16 PM
 
MyZymurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamama View Post

I think a big part of it is doctor's have become so used to using the u/s machine as a crutch that they feel they need them to do many of the things they used to do routinely without them.
ITA... more doctors have them in their offices now, and like to use it to "just take a peek" on routine visits. I have no idea how they get insurance to pay for that, though...

Mama and co-parent to our beautiful DS (08/08) and our mighty strong DD (04/10) . Life is good.
MyZymurgy is offline  
#7 of 21 Old 12-09-2009, 10:01 PM
 
shantiani's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,009
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Re effectiveness: The studies I've seen show that routine ultrasounds don't improve pregnancy outcome. So, the key word here, of course, is routine. With a high risk mama, or to diagnose worrisome symptoms, the general consensus seems to be that u/s do more good than harm and can improve outcomes. With "normal" (asymptomatic) low risk pregnancies, however, doing the standard dating and 20 wk u/s hasn't been shown to improve outcomes (measured by infant mortality and apgar scores). So although u/s is effective at dating a preg, for example, there doesn't seem to be a correlation between accurate dating and healthier babies.

Re risk: I know this article has made the rounds at least once, but it is well written and does include tons of references so you can look up actual papers on temperature and cavitation.
http://www.mothering.com/weighing-ri...out-ultrasound
My impression from reading some (by no means all) of the info out there is that there are several legitimate of areas of concern / question / uncertainty, but not much in the way of conclusive repeatable evidence of harm. It's enough for me, personally, to take the middle of the road "avoid unless necessary" approach. I feel fairly certain that no one understands the whole picture and all of the effects yet. That worries me. But I also feel confident that getting an u/s won't make my baby explode. So I would get it if I thought it would help (and I did get one early on to avoid the super stress panic attack that I was having at 10 wks) but I'd rather avoid them.

Shanti- treehugger.gif Momma to Astrid Mathildestillheart.gif (3/14/10) and expecting a new addition stork-suprise.gif (3/27/12)!

shantiani is offline  
#8 of 21 Old 12-09-2009, 10:49 PM
 
ivymae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Eastern Washington
Posts: 2,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyZymurgy View Post

Those of us with high-risk pregnancies often face multiple ultrasounds, and the minimal potential/theoretical risks of getting an ultrasound in these cases doesn't even come close to outweighing the benefits of monitoring a dangerous situation. I'm just saying this because I don't want high-risk mamas (like me) to feel even MORE stressed out. There are cases where ultrasound monitoring is vital to the health of the baby and the mother.

What the AMA would say they are against, for example, is an ultrasound done to just confirm the gender. That is a medically unnecessary medical procedure. (Except perhaps in the case of genetic sex-linked diseases...) But we should be clear that the AMA DOES recommend mid-pregnancy ultrasounds for everyone. But a doctor that does them every visit for a low-risk pregnancy is definitely going against the AMA recommendations.
Very well said. I think the 'take away' is that we forget that ultrasound is a medical procedure, and that it can save lives, but can also be over used. Finding that balance for your family/pregnancy/situation can be difficult, but should be something you give thought to, not just something you play with for fun.

Ivory, partner to Tom, mama to Ella (12/9/05), Alice (12/8/07), and our newest addition, Rebecca (4/1/10).
ivymae is offline  
#9 of 21 Old 12-09-2009, 10:53 PM
 
smeisnotapirate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
Posts: 5,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by justamama View Post
I think a big part of it is doctor's have become so used to using the u/s machine as a crutch that they feel they need them to do many of the things they used to do routinely without them. Kind of like relying too heavily on c-sections for breech births, which used to be commonly done vaginally.
ITA. My midwife regularly scoffs at having ultrasounds to check placental location and to find out what position baby is in - she can tell by listening with her fetascope and palpitating my abdomen. My OB cousin was shocked that I could palpitate my own abdomen at 18w and find exactly what position baby was in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristyM26 View Post
They don't mention doppler though, and I thought it was basically the same thing. So, it looks like they're saying u/s are bad but doppler is ok which makes no sense. Either they're both bad or they're both ok.

Also, when they reference effectiveness, what are they referring to? Are they suggesting that it's not helpful for dating or for determining gender or both? I agree that false positives are frightening for moms but they're looking at this and basically saying that all u/s are bad. And while I agree that it would be far better if women had fewer there are certainly positive uses for an u/s. Not to mention, if you're checking cervical length routinely to monitor for ptl they're basically saying you're damaging your child.

I wish they cited some of the studies they reference. I'd like to read some of them and see what chemicals they believe are generated, how much and what the temperature is and how they know this.
Doppler is ultrasound technology, so it's included under the umbrella.

I think with referencing effectiveness, they're saying that it doesn't improve maternal or fetal outcomes - it doesn't prevent anything. Telling someone a gender or a date is a totally unnecessary thing, as it doesn't at all improve the outcome of a birth. Due dates also are so arbitrary, that in most cases, knowing that "oh, we might be a week off" will lead to more interventions, more risk, and a higher mortality rate due to those interventions.

I think that's what they're getting at.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shantiani View Post
Re effectiveness: The studies I've seen show that routine ultrasounds don't improve pregnancy outcome. So, the key word here, of course, is routine. With a high risk mama, or to diagnose worrisome symptoms, the general consensus seems to be that u/s do more good than harm and can improve outcomes. With "normal" (asymptomatic) low risk pregnancies, however, doing the standard dating and 20 wk u/s hasn't been shown to improve outcomes (measured by infant mortality and apgar scores). So although u/s is effective at dating a preg, for example, there doesn't seem to be a correlation between accurate dating and healthier babies.

Re risk: I know this article has made the rounds at least once, but it is well written and does include tons of references so you can look up actual papers on temperature and cavitation.
http://www.mothering.com/weighing-ri...out-ultrasound
My impression from reading some (by no means all) of the info out there is that there are several legitimate of areas of concern / question / uncertainty, but not much in the way of conclusive repeatable evidence of harm. It's enough for me, personally, to take the middle of the road "avoid unless necessary" approach. I feel fairly certain that no one understands the whole picture and all of the effects yet. That worries me. But I also feel confident that getting an u/s won't make my baby explode. So I would get it if I thought it would help (and I did get one early on to avoid the super stress panic attack that I was having at 10 wks) but I'd rather avoid them.
Agreed. For a normal birth, an ultrasound does nothing to improve mom or baby's chances. The AMA is not talking about risked births at all, and it's a definite distinction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyZymurgy View Post
Just to clarify... the AMA recommends against "unnecessary exposure"... which is really their stand on just about everything. LOL. If it isn't necessary to do a medical procedure, then don't do it.

Some have taken this relatively neutral and non-surprising stance on ultrasounds and turned it into something more than it is. (I'm not saying you are doing that, River!! You're just accurately reporting what is out there on the Internet.)

There are many studies on the safety of ultrasounds, even printed in the the AMA's own journal (JAMA). You can google and find them. Most are clearly showing absolutely no risk in ultrasounds. But even the reassuring ones can be less than reassuring sometimes:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...ct/293/3/286-b
(This study, for example, addresses a previous study. It shows no long term growth restriction after high fetal exposure to ultrasounds at age one and beyond. But... what about before one? Is that question irrelevant if there is no long-term risk or even difference?)


Those of us with high-risk pregnancies often face multiple ultrasounds, and the minimal potential/theoretical risks of getting an ultrasound in these cases doesn't even come close to outweighing the benefits of monitoring a dangerous situation. I'm just saying this because I don't want high-risk mamas (like me) to feel even MORE stressed out. There are cases where ultrasound monitoring is vital to the health of the baby and the mother.

What the AMA would say they are against, for example, is an ultrasound done to just confirm the gender. That is a medically unnecessary medical procedure. (Except perhaps in the case of genetic sex-linked diseases...) But we should be clear that the AMA DOES recommend mid-pregnancy ultrasounds for everyone. But a doctor that does them every visit for a low-risk pregnancy is definitely going against the AMA recommendations.

Now, not everyone agrees with the AMA all the time, but that's a different post.

I hope that clarified it - at least my understanding of it from looking into it a while back.
AMA recommends ultrasound to check for fetal band syndrome, and that's pretty much all (even though amniotic band syndrome often cannot be remedied until after birth anyways). Because they haven't checked to see what the risks of having that much heat and sound waves bouncing all over a baby's forming organs, they only recommend it for women and babies with risk factors.

The AMA doesn't approve of ultrasound used for the following things: checking gender, checking fetal size and age, confirming multiple pregnancies, checking for placement in the womb. This is mostly because the technology STILL hasn't been tested for these uses.

This website has some of the studies if you want to look them up. (slanted against u/s use in its wording)

This website has an interesting history of u/s use in the obstetrical world.

We all need to keep in mind that the 20w scan didn't become "routine" until the mid '90s.

Sara caffix.gif, Keith 2whistle.gif, Toby 6/08superhero.gif, Nomi 4/10blahblah.gif, Mona 1/12 hammer.gif

 

Mama of three, lover, student rabbi, spoonie, friend, musician, narcoleptic, space muffin, pretty much a dragon. Crunchy like matzoh.

smeisnotapirate is offline  
#10 of 21 Old 12-09-2009, 11:16 PM
 
ChristyM26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kannapolis, NC
Posts: 1,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I agree that the idea of u/s improving fetal outcome is silly, since it can't provide very detailed information. What concerns me about the article is that it begins by pointing out that there are toxic chemicals produced by an ultrasound. I don't know enough in detail about how the procedure works, but that sounds like flat out fear mongering (OMG, you're poisoning your baby!) and the fact that they don't actually reference any studies but talk about the fact that they have information that shows potential risk is bothersome. If the article wants to discuss risk, it should be fair and say what study they're referencing and where it came from. The fact that they don't makes me think that it's all just people taking something they know next to nothing about and trying to sound like they do know something (and I would like to emphasize that I don't think Riverbeauty is doing that, just that the article is doing that). Also, since most people don't realize that doppler is a form of u/s, they make it sound like doppler is ok while u/s is not which is also looking as though they are either clueless themselves or trying to scare people into doing what they think is right.

In the end, I despise the fear factor on either side. Anybody who can stand in front of me (or present their facts in article) and try and pull a decision based on fear alone isn't worth my time. I make decision based on facts and risk assessments - far to few people are versed in how to do this and when the media or doctors or whoever try to fear people into doing what they want it irks me.

Mama to Aeden, : my little NICU grad and Conner and Liam () my precious twins. is due mid April!
ChristyM26 is offline  
#11 of 21 Old 12-10-2009, 12:40 AM - Thread Starter
 
Riverbeauty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bloomington, IN.
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I was curious why dopplar wasn't mentioned specifically also, but a friend of mine, who happens to be a chiropractor said:

Quote:
The reason why doppler doesn't raise as many concerns to providers is because for one it is a whole lot easier to use than fetoscope but also they justify that the higher frequency balances out with the fact that you only use it for 5-30 secs versus the scan is usually 5-60 mins. I think there can always be a balance when it comes to the use of this very valuable technology. It is the operators that have the problem doing so. There are times that using the doppler would be reasonable and others that are completely unnecessary.

I most certainly agree that ultrasound has it's place. I don't think anyone is saying that it doesn't. But as someone else mentioned already, the opportune words are "routine" and "necessary". Ultrasound, and all radiological procedures, are medical and should be used when a medical need exists. I am a high risk pregnancy, but I don't think my doc needs to do an ultrasound EVERY time I go in just to check the heartbeat and see what position the baby is in... especially this early!

Alexander 2-15-07
Lirum 3-17-10
Riverbeauty is offline  
#12 of 21 Old 12-10-2009, 02:04 AM
 
OneWithTwo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: House of chaos
Posts: 3,105
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I had 34 ultrasounds with my pregnancy with my daughter....
I have had A LOT with this one and still have A LOT more scheduled....ack

no circ/vax-babywearer-cosleeping-pumping/breastfeeding-homeschooling single mama

TTC #3

OneWithTwo is offline  
#13 of 21 Old 12-11-2009, 12:33 PM
 
lastrid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cockeysville, MD
Posts: 1,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've always found ultrasounds and EFM to be very uncomfortable, bordering on painful after an extended period of time. That in and of itself makes me not inclined to get more than one ultrasound. I might even decline it completely for the next baby.

<>< Alison
lastrid is offline  
#14 of 21 Old 12-11-2009, 11:12 PM
 
Jackies Ladybug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
the only ultrasounds that irk me are the "entertainment" 3 and 4 d ultrasounds. i went to one that my friend got and they looked at the baby for over an hour for no medical purpose whatsoever.
the baby was trying to hide and was covering its ears looking very irritated for the last 45 minutes or so while they tried to get a good picture of his face for a momento.
i cried all the way home.
Jackies Ladybug is offline  
#15 of 21 Old 12-11-2009, 11:31 PM
 
Realrellim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,990
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyZymurgy View Post
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...ct/293/3/286-b
(This study, for example, addresses a previous study. It shows no long term growth restriction after high fetal exposure to ultrasounds at age one and beyond. But... what about before one? Is that question irrelevant if there is no long-term risk or even difference?)
Does anyone know if the study factored out issues such as IUGR? This quote from the article made me wonder:

Quote:
randomized controlled trial published in 1993 by some of the same researchers had found a significant increase in the proportion of growth-restricted newborns exposed prenatally to ultrasound (5 times during pregnancy between 18 to 38 weeks’ gestational age) compared with newborns that had a single prenatal scan at 18 weeks.
With DD, I had an u/s at 7 weeks and one at 34 to check cervix length due to pre-term labor. She came out small-for-gestational age (4 lbs 9 oz at 39.5 weeks) so this time they are monitoring me closely for IUGR and pre-e (both of which were essentially undiagnosed last time). So it makes sense that there might be monitoring IUGR babies more closely, hence the significant increase.

I'm not all that worried about growth because height should not be confused with "healthy." DD turns five next week, is tiny and has never been on the charts. She's just fine. I wasn't on the charts either and I'm short, but am healthy. Last time I checked, there was no prize for being of average height or tall.

Lisa  caffix.gif and her wonderful girls: R (9) violin.gif &  J (3-3/4) coolshine.gif 
Realrellim is offline  
#16 of 21 Old 12-12-2009, 12:08 AM
 
crazyeight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by shantiani View Post
Re effectiveness: The studies I've seen show that routine ultrasounds don't improve pregnancy outcome. So, the key word here, of course, is routine. With a high risk mama, or to diagnose worrisome symptoms, the general consensus seems to be that u/s do more good than harm and can improve outcomes. With "normal" (asymptomatic) low risk pregnancies, however, doing the standard dating and 20 wk u/s hasn't been shown to improve outcomes (measured by infant mortality and apgar scores). So although u/s is effective at dating a preg, for example, there doesn't seem to be a correlation between accurate dating and healthier babies.

Re risk: I know this article has made the rounds at least once, but it is well written and does include tons of references so you can look up actual papers on temperature and cavitation.
http://www.mothering.com/weighing-ri...out-ultrasound
My impression from reading some (by no means all) of the info out there is that there are several legitimate of areas of concern / question / uncertainty, but not much in the way of conclusive repeatable evidence of harm. It's enough for me, personally, to take the middle of the road "avoid unless necessary" approach. I feel fairly certain that no one understands the whole picture and all of the effects yet. That worries me. But I also feel confident that getting an u/s won't make my baby explode. So I would get it if I thought it would help (and I did get one early on to avoid the super stress panic attack that I was having at 10 wks) but I'd rather avoid them.

on a similar but different note i'm just going to do the head scratching "hmmm" point out here that babies are considered full term at 36 weeks (as opposed to 38 weeks when i was pg with ds 5 years ago) but you're seriously hurting the baby if you dare go over 41 weeks! but we are ALL told 40 weeks is the average but it seems to me that the scale is tipping (as with ds i was told 42 weeks by an OB would be ok although pushing it) towards taking babies earlier and earlier...which i think is linked with u/s dating and sizing inaccuracy.
crazyeight is offline  
#17 of 21 Old 12-12-2009, 10:27 AM
 
ChristyM26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kannapolis, NC
Posts: 1,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It may depends on your doctor, because I've been told that term is 37 weeks (which is why I'm on injections until 37 weeks, unless something happens before then that requires hospitalization) and my OB's don't really want her born until at least 38 (however, OHP won't help much past 37, apparently or it's never been studied past 37). DS was born at 36 and they were very unhappy about that and my medical record (both OB and hospital - mine and the NICU) state clearly that he was preterm. I've never heard anybody refer to 36 weeks as term, although I would imagine there may be cases where it's close enough to term and, depending on mom and baby, might be better for the baby to be born at 36.

Mama to Aeden, : my little NICU grad and Conner and Liam () my precious twins. is due mid April!
ChristyM26 is offline  
#18 of 21 Old 12-12-2009, 12:18 PM
 
MyZymurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realrellim View Post
Does anyone know if the study factored out issues such as IUGR? This quote from the article made me wonder:



With DD, I had an u/s at 7 weeks and one at 34 to check cervix length due to pre-term labor. She came out small-for-gestational age (4 lbs 9 oz at 39.5 weeks) so this time they are monitoring me closely for IUGR and pre-e (both of which were essentially undiagnosed last time). So it makes sense that there might be monitoring IUGR babies more closely, hence the significant increase.

I'm not all that worried about growth because height should not be confused with "healthy." DD turns five next week, is tiny and has never been on the charts. She's just fine. I wasn't on the charts either and I'm short, but am healthy. Last time I checked, there was no prize for being of average height or tall.


That’s exactly what I wondered. It would be a meaningless study if they didn’t control certain confounding variables in their data…. Pre-e and PIH is associated with IUGR. Pre-E and PIH pregnancies are closely monitored (via NSTs and biophysical profiles – ultrasounds). So, yeah, if they don’t control for that of course it would seem that pregnancies with a lot of ultrasounds (PIH and pre-e pregnancies) are associated with IUGR. But the ultrasounds have nothing to do with it, of course.

I’m too cheap to buy the full study and find out. LOL! But I could only image that a study that failed to control for such things would be torn apart in a peer-reviewed journal like JAMA… or may even fail to get published if the study design was so highly flawed.

Mama and co-parent to our beautiful DS (08/08) and our mighty strong DD (04/10) . Life is good.
MyZymurgy is offline  
#19 of 21 Old 12-12-2009, 06:54 PM
 
SuzieQ3417's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 312
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyZymurgy View Post
That’s exactly what I wondered. It would be a meaningless study if they didn’t control certain confounding variables in their data…. Pre-e and PIH is associated with IUGR. Pre-E and PIH pregnancies are closely monitored (via NSTs and biophysical profiles – ultrasounds). So, yeah, if they don’t control for that of course it would seem that pregnancies with a lot of ultrasounds (PIH and pre-e pregnancies) are associated with IUGR. But the ultrasounds have nothing to do with it, of course.

I’m too cheap to buy the full study and find out. LOL! But I could only image that a study that failed to control for such things would be torn apart in a peer-reviewed journal like JAMA… or may even fail to get published if the study design was so highly flawed.
Since it's a randomized controlled study, presumably as long as the randomization is accurate, there should be no baseline differences between the two arms. Fortunately I have access to these journals (though I should be working on a paper right now instead of surfing these forums...lol).

In the 1993 paper they randomized 2834 women (no twins or multiples) between 16-20 weeks gestation - 1415 were put in the "intensive group" (to receive ultrasound and continuous-wave Doppler flow studies at 18, 24, 28, 34, and 38 weeks gestation) and 1419 in the "regular group" (to receive a single ultrasound at 18 weeks, but would not restrict further ultrasound imaging if needed for medical reasons). You should also realize that this study was designed to see if more frequent ultrasounds improved fetal outcome, so it's hard to draw hard and fast conclusions on fetal weight given that it had nothing to do with their hypothesis (just means those results warrant further study). From their results section:

"The results suggest that a protocol of frequent ultrasound imaging and Doppler flow studies between 18 and 38 weeks gestation does not improve pregnancy outcome as measured by duration of neonatal stay, requirements for resuscitation, and events in the neonatal nursery. There were 3 neonatal deaths-in the intensive arm and 10 in the regular arm with all deaths in the regular arm resulting from congenital abnormalities or preterm birth. We consider the difference in neonatal deaths most likely resulted from chance because of the small numbers involved, the lack of differences between the two groups in neonatal morbidity, and the absence of fetal growth restriction amongst the neonatal deaths in the regular arm. The finding of an increased proportion of infants in the intensive arm with birth weights under the 3rd and 10th %centiles was accompanied by a trend towards a reduction in mean birth weight of approximately 25 g. Examination of percentile shifts indicates the effect was not a general decrease in growth of all fetuses, but rather a displacement of some babies into lower centile groups.

The randomisation was effective and there were no differences between the two groups in factors which are known to influence fetal growth. There also were no differences between the groups in duration of amenorrhoea or fetal biometry at the time of the first ultrasound examination at approximately 18 weeks gestation. Multiple logistic regression analyses showed that the increased proportion of growth-restricted fetuses in the intensive arm was not due to a chance effect from differential clustering within the two groups of maternal age, maternal height or parity, socio-economic class, smoking practices, obstetric history, or fetal sex. Obstetric intervention did not contribute to the differences in the two groups, thus precluding a possible effect of early delivery in those pregnancies in which altered fetal growth may have been diagnosed earlier by the frequent ultrasound examinations."

Interestingly, though there is a statistically significant difference in the percentage of babies with weights below the 3rd (relative risk 1.65; 95% confidence intervals 1.09 to 2.49; p = 0.020) and 10th (relative risk 1.35; 95% confidence intervals 1.09 to 1.67; p = 0.006) percentiles among the intensive group, their average weight was not different from the regular group (it was 25g less, but this was not statistically significant).

In their 2004 article, they took those same babies and followed them until age 8 (evaluating at age 1, 2, 3, 5, and 8) and looked for both physical and developmental differences (language, behavior, milestones, etc). Basically they found that there was no difference between the two groups in height/weight/etc, and no difference in the developmental milestones EXCEPT the regular group performed worse at 1 year of age on the "early language milestone" scale...the authors say this may be due to parental differences given that the intensive group had better attendance at these assessments. They certainly don't say that more ultrasounds = better language development.

Note that these conclusions do not say "ultrasound is definitely safe", but I think it supports the idea that more ultrasounds do not improve the outcome of the baby. Basically...if you don't need them, don't get them.

ETA: I mean more ultrasounds in a normal pregnancy are unlikely to improve outcome. Obviously, as PPs have mentioned, this does not apply to high-risk pregnancies.

SuzieQ (27), wife to my wonderful husband of 5 years, mom to a beautiful baby boy born 3.28.10
SuzieQ3417 is offline  
#20 of 21 Old 12-12-2009, 09:21 PM
 
MyZymurgy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks, Suzie!! You're awesome!


Now get back to your paper before MDC sucks you into more interesting threads!

Mama and co-parent to our beautiful DS (08/08) and our mighty strong DD (04/10) . Life is good.
MyZymurgy is offline  
#21 of 21 Old 12-13-2009, 11:46 AM
 
JennTheMomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've only had 1 u/s with this baby, and only one I'll be getting. Had 2 with previous son. I don't think u/s are that safe, in my opinion, neither does DH. Same with doppler.
JennTheMomma is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off