Vědecká studie o působení Uz vyšetření během těhotenství na dítě

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485

Case-control study of prenatal ultrasonography exposure in children with delayed speech.

J D Campbell, R W Elford, and R F Brant

Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Alta.

 See letter "Studying delayed speech." in volume 150 on page 648a.

 See letter "Studying delayed speech." in volume 150 on page 647a.

 See letter "Studying delayed speech." in volume 150 on page 647b.

 This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is an association between prenatal ultrasound exposure and delayed speech in children. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Network of community physicians affiliated with the Primary Care Research Unit, University of Calgary. SUBJECTS: Thirty-four practitioners identified 72 children aged 24 to 100 months who had undergone a formal speech-language evaluation and were found to have delayed speech of unknown cause by a speech-language pathologist. For each case subject the practitioners found two control subjects matched for sex, date of birth, sibling birth order and associated health problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of prenatal ultrasound exposure and delayed speech. RESULTS: The children with delayed speech had a higher rate of ultrasound exposure than the control subjects. The findings suggest that a child with delayed speech is about twice as likely as a child without delayed speech to have been exposed to prenatal ultrasound waves (odds ratio 2.8, 95% confidence limit 1.5 to 5.3; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: An association between prenatal ultrasonography exposure and delayed speech was found. If there is no obvious clinical indication for diagnostic in-utero ultrasonography, physicians might be wise to caution their patients about the vulnerability of the fetus to noxious agents.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.4M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

1435

1436

1437

1438

1439

1440

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

• Ultrasound in pregnancy. Consensus statement, 1986. Norwegian Institute of Hospital Research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1987;3(3):463–470. [PubMed]
• Bennett MJ, Little G, Dewhurst J, Chamberlain G. Predictive value of ultrasound measurement in early pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1982 May;89(5):338–341. [PubMed]
• Waldenström U, Axelsson O, Nilsson S, Eklund G, Fall O, Lindeberg S, Sjödin Y. Effects of routine one-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet.1988 Sep 10;2(8611):585–588. [PubMed]
• Tarantal AF, Hendrickx AG. Evaluation of the bioeffects of prenatal ultrasound exposure in the cynomolgus macaque (Macaca fascicularis): I. Neonatal/infant observations. Teratology. 1989 Feb;39(2):137–147. [PubMed]
• Hellman LM, Duffus GM, Donald I, Sundén B. Safety of diagnostic ultrasound in obstetrics.Lancet. 1970 May 30;1(7657):1133–1134. [PubMed]
• Scheidt PC, Stanley F, Bryla DA. One-year follow-up of infants exposed to ultrasound in utero.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Aug 1;131(7):743–748. [PubMed]
• Stark CR, Orleans M, Haverkamp AD, Murphy J. Short- and long-term risks after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in utero. Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Feb;63(2):194–200. [PubMed]
• Lyons EA, Dyke C, Toms M, Cheang M. In utero exposure to diagnostic ultrasound: a 6-year follow-up. Radiology. 1988 Mar;166(3):687–690. [PubMed]
• David H, Weaver JB, Pearson JF. Doppler ultrasound and fetal activity. Br Med J. 1975 Apr 12;2(5962):62–64. [PubMed]
• Hertz RH, Timor-Tritsch I, Dierker LJ, Jr, Chik L, Rosen MG. Continuous ultrasound and fetal movement. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979 Sep 1;135(1):152–154. [PubMed]
• Stewart HD, Stewart HF, Moore RM, Jr, Garry J. Compilation of reported biological effects data and ultrasound exposure levels. J Clin Ultrasound. 1985 Mar–Apr;13(3):167–186. [PubMed]
• Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 May;125(5):761–768. [PubMed]
• Ury HK. Efficiency of case-control studies with multiple controls per case: continuous or dichotomous data. Biometrics. 1975 Sep;31(3):643–649. [PubMed]
• Sander EK. When are speech sounds learned? J Speech Hear Disord. 1972 Feb;37(1):55–63. [PubMed]
• Brown BS. How safe is diagnostic ultrasonography? Can Med Assoc J. 1984 Aug 15;131(4):307–311. [PubMed]
• Salvesen KA, Bakketeig LS, Eik-nes SH, Undheim JO, Okland O. Routine ultrasonography in utero and school performance at age 8-9 years. Lancet. 1992 Jan 11;339(8785):85–89.[PubMed]
• Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis. 1979;32(1-2):51–63. [PubMed]
• Stratmeyer ME, Christman CL. Biological effects of ultrasound. Women Health. 1982 Fall–Winter;7(3-4):65–81. [PubMed]
• Pennington BF, Smith SD. Genetic influences on learning disabilities and speech and language disorders. Child Dev. 1983 Apr;54(2):369–387. [PubMed]