PubMed · 11662812
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Judith Randal. 1980-10-31. Technical questions.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11662812/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Inherited hemoglobin disorders are an important problem in many developing countries including Thailand. Of the several inherited hemoglobin disorders, hemoglobin E (HbE) (beta 26, GAG-AAG, Glu-Lys) is the most common hemoglobinopathy in Thailand. Presently, screening to identify carriers of hemoglobin disorders among pregnant subjects is an interesting topic in antenatal care in Thailand. Of late, many trials have been conducted to identify the right screening methods for the detection of hemoglobin disorders among Thai pregnant women. The common screening methods include red blood cell (RBC) index determination, application of mathematical model and hemoglobin electrophoresis. METHODS: Here, the author presents an evaluation of the cost utility of those tests in medical practice in Thailand. The cost/utility of hemoglobin electrophoresis is the highest followed by RBC index determination, application of mathematical model and DCIP test. RESULTS: Here, it can be shown that the cost per accurate diagnosis for DCIP is the least expensive. CONCLUSION: It is interesting to note that DCIP also posed high sensitivity in the screening for HbE disorder. Therefore, this test is the best method for screening the population, particularly pregnant women, to identify carriers of hemoglobin disorders. It should be recommended as part of antenatal care in Thailand as well as its neighbouring countries which have a similar high rate of HbE disorder.
The option of single embryo transfer (SET) has recently dominated the pages of this and other medical journals. Opinions, in regards to the utility of such an approach, appear to differ between Europe and the US. While US guidelines promote a more individualized approach, European opinions, at times, even advocate mandated practice patterns. The European approach, however, fails to recognize the rather significant differences in supportive arguments between the historical switch from multiple embryo transfers to 2-embryo transfers and the current discussion, favouring a switch from 2-embryo transfer to elective (e)-SET. In the former, a significant risk of (at times, high-order) multiple pregnancies was reduced without loss of pregnancy potential. In the latter, a comparably relatively low twinning risk is reduced at the expense of declining pregnancy rates, a need for more treatment cycles, a potential delay in treatment success and, potentially, higher treatment costs. These consequences of e-SET, together with the preference of some infertility patients to actually conceive twins, raise serious questions about the wide utilization of e-SET, as has been propagated by many authorities. According to US guidelines, e-SET, therefore, appears to represent an appropriate transfer option for only a small minority of IVF patients. Argument in favour of indiscriminate SET appears unrealistic and should be reconsidered.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.