 |
|
Routine Antenatal Diagnostic Imaging With Ultrasound (RADIUS) Study
Clark B. Smith, MD
University of Tennessee Memphis
Arch Fam Med. 1994;3(6):489.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Acheson and Mitchell,1 in their acceptance of the conclusions of Ewigman et al2 and LeFevre et al3 in the Routine Antenatal Diagnostic Imaging With Ultrasound (RADIUS) study, may be confusing the pristine and well-regarded design of the study with the highly controversial and uncertain conclusions they have drawn. Perhaps this editorial was written prior to the National Institutes of Health—sponsored meeting held on December 3, 1993, that had been called to discuss the less than responsible conclusions drawn by the authors of the RADIUS study. While no conclusions were formally reached at the meeting, and probably few minds were changed, it was obvious that there is strong disagreement by many competent scientists and physicians regarding the polemic conclusions of the study.
To state that "[T]he evidence from the RADIUS trial shows that routine prenatal screening by ultrasound examinations, compared with the use of [indicated] ultrasonography, had no effect
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
|
