Your activity: 98 p.v.
your limit has been reached. plz Donate us to allow your ip full access, Email: sshnevis@outlook.com

Miscarriage rate after amniocentesis in series utilizing ultrasound guidance during the procedure

Miscarriage rate after amniocentesis in series utilizing ultrasound guidance during the procedure
Author Spontaneous abortions Difference in rates (95% CI)
Cases (numbers) Controls (number)
Tabor (1986) 1.7% (38/2242) 0.7% (17/2270) 0.9% (0.3%; 1.5%)
Andreasen (1989) 2.3% (30/1318) 1.4% (4/276) 0.8% (-1.3%; 1.9%)
Tongsong (1998) 1.8% (36/2045) 1.4% (29/2045) 0.3% (-0.4%; 1.1%)
Antsaklis (2000) 2.1% (79/3696) 1.5% (80/5324) 0.6% (0.1%; 1.2%)
Muller (2002) 0.9% (31/3472) 0.4% (197/47,004) 0.5% (0.2%; 0.8%)
Eddleman (2006) 1.0% (31/3096) 0.9% (300/31,907) 0.1% (-0.3%; 0.5%)
Kong (2006) 2.0% (68/3466) 1.2% (13/1125) 0.8% (-0.2%; 1.5%)
Towner (2007) 0.5% (69/15,005) 0.5% (90/17,045) -0.1% (-0.2%; 0.1%)
Pitukkijronnakorn (2011) 0.4% (11/2990) 0.2% (3/1495) 0.2% (-0.3%; 0.4%)
Corrado (2012) 1.0% (30/2990) 0.8% (4/487) 0.2% (-0.1%; 0.8%)
An increase in rate of spontaneous abortion compared with controls was seen in all study groups following amniocentesis, although the difference did not reach significance in four series. Tabor's data are the only data from a randomized controlled trial.
%: percent.
Graphic 57339 Version 4.0