Swedish University Students’ Opinion Regarding Information About Soft Markers
-
Published:2015-07-12
Issue:1
Volume:25
Page:146-156
-
ISSN:1059-7700
-
Container-title:Journal of Genetic Counseling
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:J Genet Counsel
Author:
Roshanai Afsaneh Hayat, Lindgren Peter, Nordin Karin, Ingvoldstad CharlottaORCID
Subject
Genetics (clinical)
Reference29 articles.
1. Agathokleous, M., Chaveeva, P., Poon, L. C., Kosinski, P., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2013). Meta-analysis of second-trimester markers for trisomy 21. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 41(3), 247–261. doi: 10.1002/uog.12364 . 2. Ahman, A., Runestam, K., & Sarkadi, A. (2010). Did I really want to know this? Pregnant women’s reaction to detection of a soft marker during ultrasound screening. Patient Education and Counseling, 81(1), 87–93. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.12.011 . 3. Ahman, A., Lindgren, P., & Sarkadi, A. (2012). Facts first, then reaction--expectant fathers’ experiences of an ultrasound screening identifying soft markers. Midwifery, 28(5), e667–675. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2011.07.008 . 4. Benacerraf, B. (2002). The significance of the nuchal fold in the second trimester fetus. Prenatal Diagnosis, 22(9), 798–801. doi: 10.1002/pd.412 . 5. Bethune, M. (2007). Management options for echogenic intracardiac focus and choroid plexus cysts: a review including Australian Association of Obstetrical and Gynaecological Ultrasonologists consensus statement. Australasian Radiology, 51(4), 324–329. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.2007.01716.x .
|
|