\n\nMain outcome measures: Velamentous or marginal cord insertion. Abruption of the placenta, placenta praevia, preeclampsia, preterm birth, operative delivery, low Apgar score, transferral to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), malformations, birthweight, and perinatal death.\n\nResults: The prevalence of abnormal cord insertion was 7.8% (1.5% velamentous, 6.3% marginal) in singleton pregnancies and 16.9% (6% velamentous, 10.9% marginal) in twins. The two conditions shared risk factors; twin gestation and pregnancies conceived with
the aid of assisted reproductive technology were the most important, while bleeding in pregnancy, advanced maternal age, maternal chronic disease, female foetus and previous pregnancy with anomalous cord click here insertion were other risk factors. Velamentous and marginal insertion was associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes such MCC950 cell line as placenta praevia (OR = 3.7, (95% CI = 3.1-4.6)), and placental abruption (OR = 2.6, (95% CI
= 2.1-3.2)). The risk of pre-eclampsia, preterm birth and delivery by acute caesarean was doubled, as was the risk of low Apgar score, transferral to NICU, low birthweight and malformations. For velamentous insertion the risk of perinatal death at term was tripled, OR = 3.3 (95% CI = 2.5-4.3).\n\nConclusion: The prevalence of velamentous and marginal insertions of the umbilical cord was 7.8% in singletons and 16.9% in twin gestations, with marginal insertion being more common than velamentous. The conditions PFTα were associated with common risk factors and an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes; these risks were greater for velamentous than for marginal insertion.”
“Background: Companies are currently marketing personal genome tests directly-to-consumer that provide genetic susceptibility testing for a range of multifactorial diseases simultaneously. As these tests comprise multiple risk analyses
for multiple diseases, they may be difficult to evaluate. Insight into morally relevant differences between diseases will assist researchers, healthcare professionals, policy-makers and other stakeholders in the ethical evaluation of personal genome tests.\n\nDiscussion: In this paper, we identify and discuss four disease characteristics – severity, actionability, age of onset, and the somatic/psychiatric nature of disease – and show how these lead to specific ethical issues. By way of illustration, we apply this framework to genetic susceptibility testing for three diseases: type 2 diabetes, age-related macular degeneration and clinical depression. For these three diseases, we point out the ethical issues that are relevant to the question whether it is morally justifiable to offer genetic susceptibility testing to adults or to children or minors, and on what conditions.\n\nSummary: We conclude that the ethical evaluation of personal genome tests is challenging, for the ethical issues differ with the diseases tested for.
Related posts:
- The secondary outcome measures (muscle strength of upper and lowe
- The main outcome was a six-month incidence of recurrent VTE and related death
- For the marginal means (collapsed across condition), *PRE > POST,
- These tables are the outcome of the authors�� personal
- Methods: The spinal cord and brain tissues of 13 sporadic ALS