Task Force Nixes Infant Screening for Hip Dysplasia

2006 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
KATE JOHNSON
PEDIATRICS ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-389
Author(s):  
Charles R. Scriver ◽  
Murray Feingold ◽  
Peter Mamunes ◽  
Henry L. Nadler

The Committee on Genetics of the American Academy of Pediatrics was formed in 1976. The initial reports from the Committee are published in this supplement to Pediatrics: one on guidelines for screening the newborn infant for hyperphenylalaninemia (including phenylketonuria [PKU]) and the other on screening for congenital hypothyroidism. The first statement describes guidelines for screening for thyroid hormone deficiency in newborn infants; it concerns a traditional problem in pediatrics, the prevention of cretinism. A statement on "T4 screening" has already been issued by the American Thyroid Association.1 Why is there need for another (and longer) statement from the Academy? The Task Force on Genetic Screening recommended a special review of T4 screening, and that recommendation has been acted on quickly in the hope that most of the mistakes made in PKU screening will not be repeated in T4 screening. The American Thyroid Association statement adequately describes the status of testing for T4 deficiency; it does not cover other essential components of an effective screening program, namely, provision for serving patient retrieval, diagnosis, and treatment. The Committee urges pediatricians and endocrinologists who elect to push ahead with T4 testing to pause and examine the many issues of mass newborn infant screening before they act too hastily, perhaps to the detriment of their patients and newborn infant screening programs. Dr. Jean Dussault served as consultant to the Committee when it examined T4 screening; his personal experience extends to ¼ million screened subjects and emanates from a model program which has largely avoided many pitfalls of newborn infant screening.


2000 ◽  
Vol 64 (10) ◽  
pp. 708-714
Author(s):  
PJ Ferrillo ◽  
KB Chance ◽  
RI Garcia ◽  
WE Kerschbaum ◽  
JJ Koelbl ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 6-13
Author(s):  
Lisa Scott-Trautman ◽  
Kristin A. Chmela
Keyword(s):  

2000 ◽  
Vol 117 (3) ◽  
pp. 97-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Leppänen ◽  
K. Mäki ◽  
J. Juga ◽  
H. Saloniemi

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 12-15
Author(s):  
Jay Blaisdell ◽  
James B. Talmage

Abstract Like the diagnosis-based impairment (DBI) method and the range-of-motion (ROM) method for rating permanent impairment, the approach for rating compression or entrapment neuropathy in the upper extremity (eg, carpal tunnel syndrome [CTS]) is a separate and distinct methodology in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition. Rating entrapment neuropathies is similar to the DBI method because the evaluator uses three grade modifiers (ie, test findings, functional history, and physical evaluation findings), but the way these modifiers are applied is different from that in the DBI method. Notably, the evaluator must have valid nerve conduction test results and cannot diagnose or rate nerve entrapment or compression without them; postoperative nerve conduction studies are not necessary for impairment rating purposes. The AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, uses criteria that match those established by the Normative Data Task Force and endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM); evaluators should be aware of updated definitions of normal from AANEM. It is possible that some patients may be diagnosed with carpal or cubital tunnel syndrome for treatment but will not qualify for that diagnosis for impairment rating; evaluating physicians must be familiar with electrodiagnostic test results to interpret them and determine if they confirm to the criteria for conduction delay, conduction block, or axon loss; if this is not the case, the evaluator may use the DBI method with the diagnosis of nonspecific pain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document