These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11001699)
1. Cost-benefit analysis of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome using the British or the American approach. Walker M; Pandya P Obstet Gynecol; 2000 Sep; 96(3):481. PubMed ID: 11001699 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. [Down syndrome--is it a disease or not?]. Nau JY Rev Med Suisse; 2011 Jun; 7(300):1382-3. PubMed ID: 21815542 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Cost-benefit analysis of prenatal diagnosis for Down syndrome using the British or the American approach. Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Smulian JC; Day-Salvatore DL; Beazoglou T; Knuppel RA Obstet Gynecol; 2000 Apr; 95(4):577-83. PubMed ID: 10725493 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Integrated, sequential, and contingent screening for Down syndrome - local needs should drive methodology. Wyatt P Prenat Diagn; 2007 Feb; 27(2):186-7. PubMed ID: 17266162 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Cost-effectiveness of Down syndrome screening paradigms. Caughey AB; Kaimal AJ; Odibo AO Clin Lab Med; 2010 Sep; 30(3):629-42. PubMed ID: 20638577 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The end of Down's syndrome? Wise J BMJ; 2016 Oct; 355():i5344. PubMed ID: 27707709 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. What will be the role of first-trimester ultrasound if cell-free DNA screening for aneuploidy becomes routine? Sonek JD; Cuckle HS Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 44(6):621-30. PubMed ID: 25449114 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. A cost-effectiveness analysis of cell free DNA as a replacement for serum screening for Down syndrome. Walker BS; Jackson BR; LaGrave D; Ashwood ER; Schmidt RL Prenat Diagn; 2015 May; 35(5):440-6. PubMed ID: 25273838 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Marginal costs and benefits. Torgerson DJ; Spencer A BMJ; 1996 Jan; 312(7022):35-6. PubMed ID: 8555859 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Fetal Down syndrome screening: a cost effectiveness analysis of alternative screening programs. Cusick W; Vintzileos AM J Matern Fetal Med; 1999; 8(6):243-8. PubMed ID: 10582856 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Questioning the costs and benefits of non-invasive prenatal testing. Stoll K; Lutgendorf M; Knutzen D; Nielsen PE J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2014 Apr; 27(6):633-4. PubMed ID: 23808328 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The impact of maternal age on the cost effectiveness of Down's syndrome screening. Torgerson DJ Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1996 Jun; 103(6):581-3. PubMed ID: 8645654 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. [Prenatal studies of trisomy 21: triple test more efficient than age criterion]. Drenthe-Schonk A Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1996 Dec; 140(49):2477. PubMed ID: 8999352 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Surge in Down syndrome prenatal testing anticipated. Collier R CMAJ; 2012 Jun; 184(9):E449-50. PubMed ID: 22529171 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Author response to letter from Song et al. Song K; Musci T; Caughey AB J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2014 Jun; 27(9):972. PubMed ID: 24007257 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. The impact of maternal age on the cost effectiveness of Down's syndrome screening. Macintosh MC Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1996 Nov; 103(11):1175-7. PubMed ID: 8917017 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]