EVIDENCE TABLE 3

Target
Article
No.
AuthorYearLocationUltrasound MethodChild•* Hip XPositive Rate per 1000Positive + Intermediate Rate per 1000Ultrasound Intermediate Category§Population • Sample XSample (Population) SizeEvidence Quality
70Baronciani
et al
1997Lombardy, ItalyGraf 50.9950.99464817
41Deimel et al1994Homburg, GermanyGraf X16.7862.39X61979
66Ganger et al1992Vienna, AustriaGraf 32.5132.51X129215
65de Pellegrin1991Milan, ItalyGraf X28.5028.50X200015
67Jones and Powell1990Swansea, WalesGraf 103.45120.00Graf II X40615
54Tonnis et al1990Dortmund, GermanyGraf X26.4826.48X517415
71Exner1988Zurich, SwitzerlandGraf 3.253.32X61513
68Langer1987Berlin, GermanyGraf X6.517.53X291715
31Dorn and Hattwich1987Salzburg, AustriaGraf X14.4414.44X609413
62Berman and Klenerman1986Toronto, OntarioGraf 5.0027.97Graf II X100114
69Marks et al1994Coventry, EnglandHarke224.32224.3284711
64Castelein
et al
1992Rotterdam, The NetherlandsHarkeX62.23208.3950< a <60 X69114
63Castelein and Sauter1988The Hague, The NetherlandsHarke6.51186.13“Abnormal” X30715
11Clarke1986Birmingham, EnglandHarke17.0918.18X11717
61Andersson
and Funnemark
1995Göteborg, SwedenOther0.9010.84“Dislocatable”443017
22Holen et al1994Trondheim, NorwayOther12.3312.71X445914
25Rosendahl
et al
1994Bergen, NorwayOther29.6229.62361315

Ultrasound Newborn Screening

    • * Unit of analysis in the study.

    • Positives only.

    • Includes intermediates.

    • § Blank implies our standard category.