https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Z3293029 2026-09-25T01:36:26Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.39.10 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=41833 2010-10-24T10:34:45Z

<p>Z3293029: /* lab 12 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> Q1) carnegie stages 7, 8, 9 and 10 occur over weeks 3 and 4<br /> <br /> Q2) from the start of week 3, the embryo grows from 0.4mm to between about 3-5mm by the end of week 4.<br /> <br /> Q3) The cranial neuropore closes at about 24 days and the caudal neuropore closes later at about 26 days.<br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 5==<br /> <br /> Q1) GI tract smooth muscle originates from the splanchnic mesoderm<br /> <br /> Q2) carnegie stage 11<br /> <br /> Q3) The canalicular stage from week 16 to 25<br /> <br /> Q4) Alveolar cells type 2 that secrete surfactant<br /> <br /> <br /> == lab 7==<br /> <br /> Q1) a myotube is a multinucleated, syncytial skeletal muscle fibre made up of myoblasts that originate from the paraxial mesoderm. The myoblasts undergo cellular division and coalesce to form a myotube.<br /> <br /> a) they would atrophy<br /> <br /> b) slow twitch fibres would develop<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 10==<br /> <br /> Q1) thyroid<br /> <br /> Q2) iodine deficiency during development leads to neurological defects ie. cretinism<br /> <br /> Q3) week 10<br /> <br /> ==lab 12==<br /> <br /> Q1) fetal length changes the most in 2nd trimester and fetal weight changes the most in 3rd trimester<br /> <br /> Q2) fetal origins hypothesis<br /> <br /> Q3) oxytocin-from maternal post pituitary<br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=41832 2010-10-24T10:27:17Z

<p>Z3293029: /* lab 10 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> Q1) carnegie stages 7, 8, 9 and 10 occur over weeks 3 and 4<br /> <br /> Q2) from the start of week 3, the embryo grows from 0.4mm to between about 3-5mm by the end of week 4.<br /> <br /> Q3) The cranial neuropore closes at about 24 days and the caudal neuropore closes later at about 26 days.<br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 5==<br /> <br /> Q1) GI tract smooth muscle originates from the splanchnic mesoderm<br /> <br /> Q2) carnegie stage 11<br /> <br /> Q3) The canalicular stage from week 16 to 25<br /> <br /> Q4) Alveolar cells type 2 that secrete surfactant<br /> <br /> <br /> == lab 7==<br /> <br /> Q1) a myotube is a multinucleated, syncytial skeletal muscle fibre made up of myoblasts that originate from the paraxial mesoderm. The myoblasts undergo cellular division and coalesce to form a myotube.<br /> <br /> a) they would atrophy<br /> <br /> b) slow twitch fibres would develop<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 10==<br /> <br /> Q1) thyroid<br /> <br /> Q2) iodine deficiency during development leads to neurological defects ie. cretinism<br /> <br /> Q3) week 10<br /> <br /> ==lab 12==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=41824 2010-10-24T08:22:21Z

<p>Z3293029: </p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> Q1) carnegie stages 7, 8, 9 and 10 occur over weeks 3 and 4<br /> <br /> Q2) from the start of week 3, the embryo grows from 0.4mm to between about 3-5mm by the end of week 4.<br /> <br /> Q3) The cranial neuropore closes at about 24 days and the caudal neuropore closes later at about 26 days.<br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 5==<br /> <br /> Q1) GI tract smooth muscle originates from the splanchnic mesoderm<br /> <br /> Q2) carnegie stage 11<br /> <br /> Q3) The canalicular stage from week 16 to 25<br /> <br /> Q4) Alveolar cells type 2 that secrete surfactant<br /> <br /> <br /> == lab 7==<br /> <br /> Q1) a myotube is a multinucleated, syncytial skeletal muscle fibre made up of myoblasts that originate from the paraxial mesoderm. The myoblasts undergo cellular division and coalesce to form a myotube.<br /> <br /> a) they would atrophy<br /> <br /> b) slow twitch fibres would develop<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 10==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 12==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=41823 2010-10-24T08:21:18Z

<p>Z3293029: /* lab 7 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> Q1) carnegie stages 7, 8, 9 and 10 occur over weeks 3 and 4<br /> <br /> Q2) from the start of week 3, the embryo grows from 0.4mm to between about 3-5mm by the end of week 4.<br /> <br /> Q3) The cranial neuropore closes at about 24 days and the caudal neuropore closes later at about 26 days.<br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 5==<br /> <br /> Q1) GI tract smooth muscle originates from the splanchnic mesoderm<br /> <br /> Q2) carnegie stage 11<br /> <br /> Q3) The canalicular stage from week 16 to 25<br /> <br /> Q4) Alveolar cells type 2 that secrete surfactant<br /> <br /> <br /> == lab 7==<br /> <br /> Q1) a myotube is a multinucleated, syncytial skeletal muscle fibre made up of myoblasts that originate from the paraxial mesoderm. The myoblasts undergo cellular division and coalesce to form a myotube.<br /> <br /> a) they would atrophy<br /> <br /> b) slow twitch fibres would develop<br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=41822 2010-10-24T08:21:03Z

<p>Z3293029: /* lab 7 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> Q1) carnegie stages 7, 8, 9 and 10 occur over weeks 3 and 4<br /> <br /> Q2) from the start of week 3, the embryo grows from 0.4mm to between about 3-5mm by the end of week 4.<br /> <br /> Q3) The cranial neuropore closes at about 24 days and the caudal neuropore closes later at about 26 days.<br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 5==<br /> <br /> Q1) GI tract smooth muscle originates from the splanchnic mesoderm<br /> <br /> Q2) carnegie stage 11<br /> <br /> Q3) The canalicular stage from week 16 to 25<br /> <br /> Q4) Alveolar cells type 2 that secrete surfactant<br /> <br /> <br /> == lab 7==<br /> <br /> Q1) a myotube is a multinucleated, syncytial skeletal muscle fibre made up of myoblasts that originate from the paraxial mesoderm. The myoblasts undergo cellular division and coalesce to form a myotube.<br /> <br /> a) they would atrophy<br /> <br /> b) slow twitch fibres would develop<br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=41819 2010-10-24T08:02:58Z

<p>Z3293029: </p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> Q1) carnegie stages 7, 8, 9 and 10 occur over weeks 3 and 4<br /> <br /> Q2) from the start of week 3, the embryo grows from 0.4mm to between about 3-5mm by the end of week 4.<br /> <br /> Q3) The cranial neuropore closes at about 24 days and the caudal neuropore closes later at about 26 days.<br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 5==<br /> <br /> Q1) GI tract smooth muscle originates from the splanchnic mesoderm<br /> <br /> Q2) carnegie stage 11<br /> <br /> Q3) The canalicular stage from week 16 to 25<br /> <br /> Q4) Alveolar cells type 2 that secrete surfactant<br /> <br /> <br /> == lab 7==<br /> <br /> Q1)<br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=41518 2010-10-20T22:16:08Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Attendance */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> Q1) carnegie stages 7, 8, 9 and 10 occur over weeks 3 and 4<br /> <br /> Q2) from the start of week 3, the embryo grows from 0.4mm to between about 3-5mm by the end of week 4.<br /> <br /> Q3) The cranial neuropore closes at about 24 days and the caudal neuropore closes later at about 26 days.<br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=41508 2010-10-20T21:19:29Z

<p>Z3293029: /* lab 3 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> Q1) carnegie stages 7, 8, 9 and 10 occur over weeks 3 and 4<br /> <br /> Q2) from the start of week 3, the embryo grows from 0.4mm to between about 3-5mm by the end of week 4.<br /> <br /> Q3) The cranial neuropore closes at about 24 days and the caudal neuropore closes later at about 26 days.<br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=41507 2010-10-20T21:15:05Z

<p>Z3293029: /* lab 3 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> Q1) carnegie stages 7, 8, 9 and 10 occur over weeks 3 and 4<br /> <br /> Q2) from the start of week 3, the embryo grows from 0.4mm to between about 3-5mm by the end of week 4.<br /> <br /> Q3)<br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=41506 2010-10-20T20:53:37Z

<p>Z3293029: /* lab 3 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> 1. carnegie stages 7, 8, 9 and 10 occur over weeks 3 and 4<br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=40735 2010-10-13T22:27:59Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Attendance */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=39857 2010-10-06T22:13:14Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Attendance */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=38824 2010-09-30T00:27:13Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Attendance */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=37879 2010-09-23T00:39:49Z

<p>Z3293029: /* group 6 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==<br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=37878 2010-09-23T00:38:40Z

<p>Z3293029: /* group 5 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> <br /> ==group 6==</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=37874 2010-09-23T00:37:21Z

<p>Z3293029: /* group 3 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. <br /> <br /> ==group 5==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==group 6==</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=37873 2010-09-23T00:36:49Z

<p>Z3293029: /* group 3 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==<br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort. --z3293029 15:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=37872 2010-09-23T00:36:05Z

<p>Z3293029: /* group 1 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> ==group 2==<br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> <br /> ==group 3==</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=37870 2010-09-23T00:34:31Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Group project reviews */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> =Group project reviews=<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> --z3293029 13:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=37869 2010-09-23T00:34:22Z

<p>Z3293029: /* group 1 */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Group project reviews==<br /> <br /> ==group 1==<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> --z3293029 13:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=37868 2010-09-23T00:34:03Z

<p>Z3293029: </p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Group project reviews==<br /> <br /> =group 1=<br /> Group 1: Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition. One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it. <br /> <br /> --z3293029 13:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=37840 2010-09-22T23:16:05Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Attendance */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=37838 2010-09-22T23:15:27Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Attendance */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 23:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Group_Project_6&diff=37825 2010-09-22T22:22:45Z

<p>Z3293029: </p> <hr /> <div>==Peer review==<br /> <br /> <br /> Group 6: Your page is very well put together. The information is in depth and structured nicely so that it seems to flow well as you read it and seems to cover all concepts. I feel like i get a very good overview of the topic after reading it and i found the &quot;testing and the community&quot; section particularly engaging. You could try to improve the page with the use of more pictures and maybe a discussion about this technique in relation to others that also use maternal blood. You could also discuss the future of this technique and the benefits of direct analysis of fetal material through maternal blood in comparison to invasive techniques? but overall a really good job<br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 22:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Group 6 - very informative, well done. The page could do with more images and tables to engage the reader's attention a little more and also allow for some information to be compared and contrasted. Nice effort with the hand drawn pictures. You could also include current research on the uses of the procedure in relation to pregnancy and fetal development as well as the future of the procedure. Although it is not your subject matter it would be helpful for you to briefly define what percutaneous umbilical blood sampling is and emphasise the risks that the method of sample collection are strongly associated with the decision to use this procedure. Aside from that good effort --z3241780 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> '''GROUP 6: Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein'''<br /> <br /> I liked the overall scientific feel of the information you provided. I liked how you went into a bit of the molecular biology involved, as well as pictures to explain what exactly is alpha-beta protein. you guys showed a good understanding of the topic, although I noticed an error in the contents section where you put all the other headings under the 'introduction'. I liked the drawn pictures, it was a nice effort and was very informatively labelled. Ways to improve is probably add some tables to there isn't as much text and to simplify things, and also it can make it more interesting than it is already. More pictures in the abnormalities would have been good, images of spina bifida are definately eye catching and interesting to know about. The tables as pictures were a little hard to see without clicking on them but yes, good organisation, great job! <br /> --[[User:Z3224500|z3224500]] 13:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> To tell you the truth I didn’t find anything wrong with this assignment page. There is a lot of information but that can be expected from an informative web page. Yet the best way to make it look less is just throw some pictures into the mix. I think that your page was the only page that didn’t have any spelling mistakes so good work in that department and keep it up. I sometimes thought in some areas that the language was a bit easy to read and this can be both an advantage or a disadvantage depending on how Mark Hill but as a precaution just add a bit more scientific data. I don’t think it will hurt. I felt that in some place maybe a table would better suit the information presented but that just me. I also found the introduction had things that could be covered in sections below but I’m not sure if that was intentionally done. The best way to reduce the amount of words used to describe is to dot point or tabulate coming back to my old point but apart from that I found the assignment very informative and interesting which really isn’t easy when you have all those word, most people would have rambled on. So hats off to you there. The flow of the page is disrupted but you can fix that up by just moving bits and pieces around the page seeing where it fits best. A really good assignment. Well Done Guys!!!!<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3252635|z3252635]] 13:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi guys!<br /> <br /> Good job with the referencing and copyright information on your pictures, including the student-drawn ones. It would be nice to see descriptions of the pictures in that caption-area, just to make it more clear what part of your writing they were relating to. I love that you included a link to a video in your intro; it made me want to watch and find out more. I would suggest moving your other links for further reading to before your glossary though, just so they don’t get lost in the page – once people hit the glossary I find they tend to think that’s the end and stop reading (at least I tend to). Other than that, it says “ babys’ ” instead of “baby’s” in the Maternal Serum Alpha Protein as a Screening Test section first paragraph; but other than that I didn’t spot much else in the way of typos, and I found your language quite easy to read. Other suggestions would just be maybe to break up the text a bit, perhaps with some more pictures, just to make the page more eye-catching. Perhaps something with colour, if you can find it. Overall, though, well done!--[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 12:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Group 6<br /> <br /> Group 6, I think the structure of your page is great, there's enough subheadings to break it into clear sections, but maybe more point form could be used to break it up a little. The information is very detailed so it shows lots of research but its written in a clear enough way to be understandable, and it has a good scientific feel. The student drawn diagrams, especially the one of the analysis process, is great and helps to explain the information really well.<br /> What would improve this project: Maybe some more references, and you could also put in a section of the historic background of the procedure with some of the information that's in the introduction.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 08:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Group6<br /> Very good scientific content and ease of flow. I understood how the test was done and I became aware of this issues that arrise from genetic testing of this sort.<br /> A picture of phlebotomy and the current types of syringes and collection utensils may be an answer to your picture problem. I was really impressed bu the ammount of knowledge you have accumulated on reference ranges and levels. Scientifically this is good as it seems to be very involved. Thankyou for stating that it is important for screening purposes as this highlights the tests importance for me.<br /> The glossary is very informative and valuable.<br /> --[[User:Z3129413]] 17:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein<br /> <br /> This is a great project filled with lots of information. It is clearly well researched and the organisation of the page itself is sensible in the logical order of sub headingsand the flow of ideas.<br /> <br /> I don't mind seeing a picture aligned to the left :P. Maybe you could use figures the break up the text a bit more? Other than that great work guys, this is excellent and gives a very 'scienfitic feeling'presentation of this topic<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 17:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Group 6 = Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein<br /> <br /> The project is very organised and the pictures included were very related to the text. I really liked the link too because that not only showed you did alot of research for this project but also made it outstanding. Definetly provide me with better understanding About MSAFP.<br /> <br /> How you can improve = There are alot of words may be try to break them down into point form but other than that everything looks good --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 12:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi Group 6, I like how you have organised the page, its easy to follow and the layout was great. The pictures helped me with understanding the sections, although maybe they could be a bit bigger. I did learn alot about Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein from your page, Thanks!<br /> <br /> Improvements: Under the heading MSAFP testing and the community, there is a spelling mistake. liklihood should be likelihood, and servey should be survey. The page also looks a bit like an essay, maybe for some parts you could do a few tables to make it easier to follow<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 03:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I enjoyed reading this project, the layout was overall great and i liked how you put in a link to a video. It was very understandable and i was able to follow what was said throughout reading it all. It was scientific enough but easy for anyone to read. <br /> <br /> Improvements - the pictures were a little small, so maybe enlarge them a bit. Also, maybe break the procedure section into the different steps that are taken.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3291079|z3291079]] 10:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> There is A LOT of information. Although it is very well researched (to that I commend you), I personally think you need to break it up a bit. Maybe align the pictures differently; they are great pictures they just seem to hang there as a side thought. Maybe also include a table or flow chart for the procedure because it is quite hard to follow. Your glossary is adequate although your referencing may fall short in the screening test section. Great video to start off with!! Good work guys!! --[[User:Z3252083|z3252083]] 12:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10MHtalk}}<br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 00:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC) OK guys, its now time to get going with this. You need to have significant content added to all sections on your project page before this weeks lab. Still no related images or student drawn figure here.<br /> <br /> ===You need to have this updated before this weeks lab when I will be reviewing all projects.===<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 04:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)OK so there is some discussion here. I need the major subheadings to be added before this weeks lab and there should be some thought to the content within each section. Still no related images here.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 22:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Well group 6 where is your work that should have been done before this week's Lab?<br /> <br /> Hey guys, ive only really done some light background research about alpha-fetaprotein testing via wiki/google/journal articles hehe :P<br /> <br /> <br /> Anyway, i forgot to save the links i got for the journal articles ive already printed off, but i’ll stick up their titles which can be found easily, and i’ll basically summarise the info we can use from them anyway and stick it up so we can sift through it all. <br /> <br /> <br /> The journal articles that i remembered to save links to are as follows:<br /> <br /> First-trimester maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein as a marker for fetal chromosomal disorders - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pd.1970141012/abstract<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 04:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Here is the Pubmed link for the above paper http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7534926 This is how to cite it using the current website (look at the page in edit mode):<br /> <br /> &lt;pubmed&gt;7534926&lt;/pubmed&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> And this is how to reference it in the body of your project page.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;7534926&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> to appear in a reference list<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> Amniotic fluid alpha-fetoprotein is not a useful biological marker of pregnancy outcome - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291097-0223%28199911%2919:11%3C1031::AID-PD684%3E3.0.CO;2-7/abstract<br /> <br /> The value of early third-trimester maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein determination - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pd.1970100308/abstract<br /> <br /> Reduced fetal hepatic alpha-fetoprotein levels in Down' s syndrome - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pd.1970101108/abstract<br /> <br /> Very low versus undetectable maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein values and fetal death - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pd.1970070605/abstract<br /> <br /> I don’t know what you guys had in mind for splitting the work etc, but as it is, im quite happy to just get info, and slowly just add info the main page as it goes and let it slowly evolve from constant editing of stuff etc. And if anyone had clashes of ideas etc, then just fix/change a section and stick it up as well and we can all just edit passages as we see fit after some discussion hehe<br /> <br /> <br /> so you guys know what other articles im looking at, so we don’t really double up on info, are as follows:<br /> The effectiveness of prenatal serum biomarker screening for neural tube defects in 2nd trimester pregnant women<br /> <br /> Msaf values in type ½ diabetic patients<br /> <br /> 2nd trim. Msaf elevation and its association with adverse maternal/fetal outcome<br /> <br /> Afp in the early neonatal period<br /> <br /> Structure and function of afp<br /> <br /> ps - i most likely will just play around with headings etc on the main page...and if i put info up there in point form its not really the main text, just a quick point of ref. for what info i may or may not stick up etc as well as just general format testing haha ^_^<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3186755|3186755]] 15:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hi everyone, yeh I think its a good idea to compile information and research before the next lab and go through <br /> it together before we designate certain areas to one another. I'll try to get through some of the articles that <br /> are up to get an idea of how we are going to divide the work up. Possible categories:<br /> <br /> 1) Introduction to how it is carried out, history, developements.<br /> 2) How the test works, what is used or tested.<br /> 3) What the test is looking for, diseases, syndromes, dissorders.<br /> 4) Any problems or flaws the test has, effectiveness, contempory issues.<br /> <br /> We should discuss more in depth during the lab, put up any more ideas for subheadings that we should use.<br /> <br /> Thanks<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3290040|3290040]] 12:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey guys, <br /> <br /> I’m still in the research stage with this assignment, I think we really need to come up with a specific outline or structure for the assignment so the work can be divided up soon.<br /> <br /> This structure is similar to the previous one mentioned above:introduction and background information on prenatal testing, what is alpha-fetoprotein how it is made by the foetus etc, the diseases that could be tested, history of maternal alpha- fetoprotein testing, accuracy etc.I don’t think there is much information on the procedure or ethical issues on this topic as they are not so relevant.<br /> <br /> Here are two links<br /> The first one is some general research done on rats. I’m not sure if you guys want to use it?!!<br /> <br /> www.reproduction-online.org/cgi/reprint/48/1/1.pdf <br /> <br /> reducing invasive testing by using maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein testing. We could use it to compare some benefits of a non-invasive test. <br /> <br /> http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199404213301603<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254433|z3254433]] 11:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey guys,<br /> <br /> I think right now we have come up with the basic lay out of the site, I suggest that we split up the parts in our next lab class and if we come across anything that are specific for our assignment and think it's worthwhile to put in the site as well we can do that as we go along. These are some of the articles that I have been looking at:<br /> <br /> MATERNAL SERUM ALPHA-FETOPROTEIN MEASUREMENT: A SCREENING TEST FOR DOWN SYNDROME - <br /> http://storage0.nun.unsw.edu.au/cgi-bin/Data/db.cgi?db=fulltexttest&amp;uid=default&amp;view_records=1&amp;url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=GatewayURL&amp;_origin=SFX&amp;_method=citationSearch&amp;_volkey=01406736%23323%23926&amp;_version=1&amp;md5=b96bddefb297298958f38399471d082b&amp;Address=http://www.sciencedi<br /> <br /> MATERNAL SERUM α-FETOPROTEIN—A MARKER OF FETAL APLASTIC CRISIS DURING INTRAUTERINE HUMAN PARVOVIRUS INFECTION - <br /> http://storage0.nun.unsw.edu.au/cgi-bin/Data/db.cgi?db=fulltexttest&amp;uid=default&amp;view_records=1&amp;url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=GatewayURL&amp;_origin=SFX&amp;_method=citationSearch&amp;_volkey=01406736%23329%23433&amp;_version=1&amp;md5=e7e29728e20dd0ed4956e51eb02c2128&amp;Address=http://www.sciencedi<br /> <br /> PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS OF SPINA BIFIDA AND ANENCEPHALY BY MATERNAL SERUM-ALPHA-FETOPROTEIN MEASUREMENT : A Controlled Study - <br /> http://storage0.nun.unsw.edu.au/cgi-bin/Data/db.cgi?db=fulltexttest&amp;uid=default&amp;view_records=1&amp;url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=GatewayURL&amp;_origin=SFX&amp;_method=citationSearch&amp;_volkey=01406736%23303%23765&amp;_version=1&amp;md5=bc4a8ecfac6aea060269fd3858638b59&amp;Address=http://www.sciencedi<br /> <br /> Alpha-fetoprotein Information, chemical composition, quantition, Standardization of AFP assay etc. - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3083.1978.tb03896.x/pdf<br /> <br /> Overview - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B83W2-4TX314K-5&amp;_user=1975841&amp;_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2008&amp;_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_orig=search&amp;_origin=search&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;_acct=C000004218&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=1975841&amp;md5=a7bfedcf9c80ddcf5994434da0c82603&amp;searchtype=a<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3216889|3216889]] 10:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> hey guys,<br /> <br /> i just put up a very rough and incomplete outline of the subheading that we can have for our assignment, so if you have any subheading you would like to add or edit those that i have put up please do so.<br /> <br /> also if anyone has any relevant picture that we can use please post them up.<br /> <br /> cheers.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254433|z3254433]] 23:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> hey, i just stuck up some basic background stuff on afp that is prety much just a dump of info so we can use it how we see fit :) hopefully will be able to add some other stuffs under the diff headings etc ^_^<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3186755|3186755]] 14:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> hey guys, just sending you a pictures via email that i drew but i think it might breach copyright so if you can edit it so that its not that would be great, also I'm uploading other pictures that i have drawn on our site. if you find any pictures that aren't copyright please post them up because i can't seem to find any!!!<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254433|z3254433]] 05:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ok I have chuck in the spina bifida and anencephaly detection in there, I would have the Down Syndrome detection up soon as well. I will help find pictures of thoses disorders as well and have them up as soon as possible. (Note to self: remember to edit the AFP in pregnancy so it doesn't overlap with the disorder section)<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3216889|3216889]] 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)----<br /> <br /> just upload the picture you emailed to us :) it should be fine hehe<br /> anyway, just added extra parts :)<br /> --[[User:Z3186755|3186755]] 16:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> hey guys, did 3290040 respond to any of the emails you sent? --[[User:Z3186755|3186755]] 11:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> hey,<br /> i got no response,<br /> Q) why won't these pics upload on our page???<br /> [[File:Encephalocele_of_a_newborn.JPG|thumb]]<br /> [[File:Down_Syndrome_Karyotype.png|thumb]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254433|z3254433]] 11:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ummm not sure? maybe try and just upload onto the main page and see if its like that i guess :S the other pictures seem to work fine on the main page<br /> --[[User:Z3186755|3186755]] 15:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> so i redid all the references since no one knew how to edit them properly. However, i couldnt really find the proper references for the following:<br /> <br /> Green 1995. See n. 6, p. 232 <br /> <br /> Iles and Gath 1993. See n. 30, p. 411<br /> <br /> so i'll leave it here in discussion to be cleared up and take it off the main page hehe<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3186755|3186755]] 13:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Group_Project_5&diff=37824 2010-09-22T22:01:33Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Peer review */</p> <hr /> <div>==Peer review==<br /> <br /> <br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression and even put into a table to aid understanding? But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 21:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Group 5 - in terms of content, it is informative. Well done. In terms of the page aesthetics, images of fetal fibronectin itself would be useful at the start, and images especially in the Procedure section. The information is there however the use of images throughout the page and tabulating some of your information would make it more engaging and easier to understand. Remember to add a Historical background on the procedure even if it's short seeing as it is still a relatively 'new' procedure. The current research section could be rephrased more to fit into the flow of your page as a whole. Judging by the last sentence, it seems as though it has been put together by simply copy and pasting snippets from different journals. It would be more beneficial if the information given in the journals was analysed, interpreted and then presented while still referencing. This goes for the procedure also. Try to find information, understand it yourself and then 'explain' it to your audience. You will find that the page will be more cohesive as a result. Another point would be to expand the subheadings so that they clearly identify the subject matter being covered under that section as at the moment they are quite vague. Some points which could also be addressed: future of the procedure? The glossary could also be expanded. Good effort. --z3241780 14:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> '''GROUP 5: Fetal Fibronectin'''<br /> <br /> Group 5 the first thing I have to say about your project page that I think will really help you guy out is that you need put more pictures. If I’m not mistaken the hand drawn picture at the very top is the only picture on the whole page. Pictures help captivate the audience and makes your intended audience want to read on to find out or relate the picture to the information present. They also help break up the page and allow the reader some processing time while reading the information of Fetal fibronectin. The Information you have presented is pretty much flawless being the perfect amount of scientific language, by this I mean that your assignment is assessable for pretty much anyone but more importantly the information was informative. The Dot points you have used many of the section also help us understand the project better. Last but not least you have missed out on history of the pre-natal diagnostic technique which Mark Hill said was part of his marking scheme, and after reading what other people have posted on your discussion page I notice that I’m not the only one to make this comment. Apart from that nice work!!!!<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3252635|z3252635]] 13:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> You have a nice and simple page, concise and to the point. Nice drawn image at the beginning of the page to draw attention I thought it was very well done. I found that the current research was good, showed some good effort with good references to backup your info about the case studies and statistics. Ways that could be improved is the use of images, so people could understand the topic better, and some tables may help to make the information more interesting. I guess more detail and elaborate more on the history. Also i wasn't sure if there were any risks involved and how common this test is done. References were good, with a nice glossary. nice effort!<br /> --[[User:Z3224500|z3224500]] 13:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Good content, needs a bit of colour and dynamics,,pictures, to engage the viewer,<br /> The explanation of the results that can be obtained is succinct and to the point, it is a good section. There a few typos about, I was interseted in how accurate the test was for predicting pre term births and this was dealt with well in clinical research section. This had good scientific content. A table summarising your projects views on the validity of conducting this procedure, may reinforce the topic as, as you have explained in sentences, that it is a pretty crucial diagnostic tool. With a few little things like that this is a good web page.<br /> --[[User:Z3129413]] 17:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Simple, good organisation and what I like about it is that they referenced a lot of their text to backup their information which i thought was very scientific. The drawn picture was nice, but overall the page needed more images and pictures to understand the topic better. A table may have been a good choice to convey some information to make it more interesting, but it is still simple so not a very big deal there. So overall, more images, and I think more longer information under some headings would provide more extensive knowledge on the topic. References are very good, with an alright glossary. <br /> Hi guys!<br /> <br /> I’m guessing that the fetal fibronectin diagram at the top of the page is your student drawn diagram. Nice job on it. You might want to more clearly indicate that it is student drawn, though, and you should probably include the copyright statement. Also, you might want to think about adding some more pictures to your page to break up the text a little bit and make the page more eye-catching and easy to look at. I have to say that I really liked the way that you’ve set out the section on the test results. It was very easy to read. If I had another suggestion, it would be to move your glossary up to before the references – I almost didn’t notice you had a glossary hidden there. If someone wasn’t really looking, they might not spot it. Other than that, nice job!--[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 12:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --Group 4 Fetal Fibronectin <br /> <br /> Although this page had not as much detail put into it compared to previous pages, I found it much easier to read and absorb information. We must take into account that they have used a variety of sources so I am speculating that this is the more important information after researching this topic. So taking this into account I believe that this page is informative on the topic using a variety of sources, but hasn’t gone too in depth. The only advice I can give is to add some pictures or diagrams, even reproduce the information in a table to make it more interesting. Thanks guys you have done a great job. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3290040|3290040]] 10:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Group 5<br /> <br /> Group 5, the set out of your page is really good, its broken up into sections and there's lots of point form throughout which makes it really clear and easy to understand, except for current research. <br /> <br /> What could be improved: More pictures would help break it up and make it more interesting, maybe a picture of the actual procedure would be good. Some more detail could be added to give it a more scientific aspect like for example in the procedure section, and maybe a section on the historic background, I think thats part of the marking criteria. Overall i think you've done a great job but just maybe add some more detail to give it a more scientific feel.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 08:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Fetal Fibronectin<br /> <br /> Hey guys good work with this assignment. The first thing I notice was there are not as many pictures as there are in other pages. However, what was there was relevant and easily readable.I think some more detail could be given in a few sections would help convey a more technical side of this subject matter. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 17:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Group 5 = I really like how all the parts are broken down into points which made it easy to follow except for the &quot;current research&quot; . It is very structured and the picture looks great.<br /> <br /> What could be improved is adding more pictures and break down the current research into bullet points but other than that its great --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 12:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Group 5: Foetal fibronectin <br /> What I found good about this assignment was that all the information was presented in a clear and organized manner, and did appear to have a teaching element to the project. There was a great amount of research and referencing done although it did lack a bit of a “scientific feel”.<br /> <br /> What could be improved?<br /> Some extra pictures or tables could be added and also the glossary could probably be placed above the references so that it is easier to refer to it instead of having to scroll all the way down. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254433|z3254433]] 07:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hi Group 5, I liked the fact that everything is referenced, it made me feel like you have really researched what you are putting on here. Your page is very informative and i learnt alot about fetal fibronectin. i liked your student drawn diagram!<br /> <br /> improvements: definitely extra pictures. If you cant find any that you can use, start emailing the companies, this is how i got most of our permissions, as i couldnt find any with permissions. as a last resort try wiki, all of their pictures arent copyright protected. Also, probably best to go through the criteria for the page, youve missed the history altogether. Here it is for you:<br /> project outline:<br /> <br /> 1. Intro<br /> <br /> 2. historic background<br /> <br /> 3. current associated research<br /> <br /> 4. simplified description of technique<br /> <br /> 5. student drawn figure or animation<br /> <br /> 6. reference list<br /> <br /> 7. glossary<br /> <br /> 8. external links <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 03:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Reading through the information is quite easy, the headings and sub-headings makes it very clear to follow. Having questions as sub-headings makes it very user friendly to read and understand the fetal fibronectin test. However the history and development of the test is lacking. Also is the test specific for pre-mature birth detection only? please specify. The introduction also is a bit confusing where it say &quot;Fetal fibronectin is a protein based plasma that acts as a form of glue attaching the amniotic sac to the uterine wall. Fetal fibronectin is commonly present between 22 to 35 weeks of pregnancy. It is released into the upper vagina towards the onset of labour. If the test finds fFN between this period, the woman will have a chance of going into labour&quot; - what period are u talking about? when I read it, it seems to be prefering to 22-35 weeks of pregnancy as it state before, but it was mention that it was commonly to find fFN during that time, does that mean that it is common for women to have pre-mature births?<br /> <br /> What could be improve would be providing a brief history of this test and fix up the introduction so it won't be confusing to the reader.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3216889|3216889]] 13:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10MHtalk}}<br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC) There is no content on your project page and you are not making appropriate progress. I expect you all at this weeks lab and an explanation as to why no one is adding content to your project page.<br /> <br /> ===You need to have this updated before this weeks lab when I will be reviewing all projects.===<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 04:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC) This is no where not good enough, I will need to talk to you in this weeks lab. Your group has not searched the scientific literature, found information about fibronectin or related images. Unless everyone here gets going on this project you will not be completed in time.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dez--[[User:Z3318446|Seow Liew]] 09:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hi,members,i have split the work up to 3 different constituent parts and each of us will get to pick 1<br /> <br /> and do it.In addition,i have also roughly split the work up to 3 stages, which is:<br /> <br /> a)collecting the information from different sources,<br /> <br /> b)grouping the information,and<br /> <br /> c)put what we get on group page.<br /> <br /> Note:<br /> <br /> -you just need to put your name next to the capitalised heading,(e.g PART C-Dez)to indicate you are up to that part.<br /> <br /> -PART C is picked by me, so,options left are PART A and B only.<br /> <br /> -You can always add in additional info, but i think it`s better we discuss it first when we figure or find it out(the ones you cant decide if they`re your part),so that we can discussion whose part it belongs to and who should do it, to kinda maintain the flow of the content.<br /> <br /> -i`m aware that PART B is relatively short,i was outta ideas.Well, the point of PART B i make it mainly emphasizes on info related to how this test is carried out and 3rd party`s voices on this test.<br /> <br /> The 3 different parts that i have split up are as following:<br /> <br /> PART A - Jade<br /> <br /> Introduction:<br /> <br /> -what does this technique rely on?(fibronectin)<br /> <br /> -Stuff about fn ,fibronectin,like the time or stage it forms during pregnancy.<br /> <br /> -what does fn do in mom`s tummy during pregnancy.<br /> <br /> -what kind of other abnormalities can this test predict? (mainly used for the prediction of preterm birth as far as i know)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> -signs and events of preterm birth in mom`s tummy if there`s a high possibility the mom`s having a <br /> <br /> preterm birth,like,cervix dilation , fn leaks outta vagina,etc.<br /> <br /> -the relationship of fn and prediction of preterm birth.<br /> <br /> (like comparison of fn between pregnant woman who are not at risk of preterm birth and those who are,etc)<br /> <br /> <br /> PART B-Mary<br /> <br /> -how does the test work? like,steps and procedures involve.<br /> <br /> 3rd party`s voices:<br /> <br /> -what do the public doctors , pregnant woman say about this technique?-interview thing, vids( how this<br /> <br /> test is carried out)<br /> <br /> -related images.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PART C-Dez<br /> <br /> -who should take the test?<br /> <br /> -What will the results tell about risk of delivering early?<br /> <br /> -diagnostic accuracy.<br /> <br /> -side effects.<br /> <br /> -advantages of knowing the prediction.<br /> <br /> -treatments for those who tested with positive result.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> One last thing,<br /> <br /> i think our primary source would be pubmed,of course there`re others too, but then the info isnt as<br /> <br /> extensive and specific as pubmed,so go to it,look for the related journals and extract only details that<br /> <br /> you need.<br /> <br /> It`d be great if we could find more images and videos related to the info we get,by doing so,we could<br /> <br /> make the page less lengthy and readers understand it better.<br /> <br /> Looking forward to your comments,because i could be wrong.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3291079|z3291079]] 12:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> We should probably add something about the history of fetal f. Fit it in with part B?<br /> <br /> heey , sorry for the late reply.Yea, it fits in with part B , sounds reasonable.<br /> Do you have any idea what it could be? and post some links on here , if you have some with you.<br /> --[[User:Z3318446|Seow Liew]] 06:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey guys I found a really good article about that defines what fetal fibronectin is and how it is used to determine preterm labour. I Don't know if I can copy paste because of the copyright and I forgot how to make a link so the website is http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/publications/statements/C-obs26.pdf , It's got bits and pieces of everyones parts if You guys want to look through it and pick out what would be of help to you. Also I found a video. It's that doctor that goes onto the Dr Phil show but it's pretty good. It was one of few that I could find soo look at it and tell me what you think. Its website is http://www.5min.com/Video/Learn-about-Fetal-Fibronectin-Test-114223707. If you can find any videos just post them up because I don't think there are many around. Also I've found articles that question the tests ability to undermine the occurrence of the pre-term birth. I don't know if this is significant enough to add in as we are essentially talking about it's role in identifying whether or not the mother is going to have a pre-term birth or not instead of whether the doctor can stop it. Tell me what you think. should I add it in or not? You can find the article at http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/1996/05000/The_Preterm_Prediction_Study__Fetal_Fibronectin.1.aspx. --[[User:Z3252083|Mary Nicolas]] 10:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I think it is significant enough as it is an issue around this technique.I`d say add it in.<br /> --[[User:Z3318446|Seow Liew]] 07:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Yeah add this in cos you can say how it is a good technique but is not the best etc., etc. This could cover the topic of the reliability of this technique which we can look through. Some additional info i guess. --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 03:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Mary, you have one more part to do , which is the history of fetal fibronectin.( Like what inspired the Doc came up with this technique and is this technique a modified version of some technique, and of course it`d be great if you could find stuff like when the first time this technique was put to use, how was it and talk a little bit about the following tests,and important people involved.)<br /> --[[User:Z3318446|Seow Liew]] 06:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey guys, I've found an article that is a good reference describing the test...it's a good outline of what we need to know. I've found a site about fFN that may help, nothing major though. it also has a few references of articles on there that we could research. I'm going to post the subheadings up on the main page of what i think, let me know what you think but you guys can go ahead and change it :) - Jade<br /> <br /> http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1149.asp<br /> <br /> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582650/?tool=pubmed --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 03:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Oh and if we can find anything about further research about fFN, about improving it or something then we should add that in --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 03:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I will do a drawing of fetal fibronectin in the womb, there's a great picture on the video that mary posted, so i will use that as a guide --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 11:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> http://www.southernhealth.org.au/icms_docs/1197_Fetal_fibronectin_Quikcheck_in_threatened_peterm_labour.pdf Just some more info to help --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey guys, kinda getting worried, we should really get a move on with this assignment lol. I'm going to draw a picture today and put it up. And hopefully finish my part of this assignment. Any feedback? --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 00:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Another helpful site guys - http://www.ffntest.com/index.html --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> hey guys don't worry about me I'm doing my work I just want to do it all before I put it up. The test results and procedure have been really easy to put together but the history is quite difficult as there is not demarcating date or person that used it first up... if that makes sense. I'll do it but I dont think I'm going to come up with a timeline like some of the other groups. --[[User:Z3252083|Mary Nicolas]] 04:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> @Mary:it`s alright ,Mary.Put up what you think is makes sense,we can then discuss on it and edit in the remaining days.<br /> @Jade:i realise you didn`t reference your work.So, i reckon you reference your work as soon as you can.--[[User:Z3318446|Seow Liew]] 10:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> We also need more images. It's hard to find non-copyrighted pictures for fFN. i'll draw another picture if really needed. --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 12:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Group_Project_5&diff=37823 2010-09-22T21:59:25Z

<p>Z3293029: </p> <hr /> <div>==Peer review==<br /> <br /> <br /> Group 5: I found your page to be very concise and to the point and your information seems to cover all concepts without rambling on. This is a good thing because it makes reading the text straightforward and simpler to understand but at the same time i think you could still have used with some background information, perhaps in a history section, and maybe even a discussion about limitations. More pictures would also greatly improve not only the look of your page but also compliment the information and engage your reader. In terms of structure, i think that improvements could be made here to allow the information to flow better. Perhaps the 'preventions' section could be merged with &quot;what next?' because the content is related so it would be natural progression. But overall its looking good and the research is evident. good job<br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 21:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Group 5 - in terms of content, it is informative. Well done. In terms of the page aesthetics, images of fetal fibronectin itself would be useful at the start, and images especially in the Procedure section. The information is there however the use of images throughout the page and tabulating some of your information would make it more engaging and easier to understand. Remember to add a Historical background on the procedure even if it's short seeing as it is still a relatively 'new' procedure. The current research section could be rephrased more to fit into the flow of your page as a whole. Judging by the last sentence, it seems as though it has been put together by simply copy and pasting snippets from different journals. It would be more beneficial if the information given in the journals was analysed, interpreted and then presented while still referencing. This goes for the procedure also. Try to find information, understand it yourself and then 'explain' it to your audience. You will find that the page will be more cohesive as a result. Another point would be to expand the subheadings so that they clearly identify the subject matter being covered under that section as at the moment they are quite vague. Some points which could also be addressed: future of the procedure? The glossary could also be expanded. Good effort. --z3241780 14:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> '''GROUP 5: Fetal Fibronectin'''<br /> <br /> Group 5 the first thing I have to say about your project page that I think will really help you guy out is that you need put more pictures. If I’m not mistaken the hand drawn picture at the very top is the only picture on the whole page. Pictures help captivate the audience and makes your intended audience want to read on to find out or relate the picture to the information present. They also help break up the page and allow the reader some processing time while reading the information of Fetal fibronectin. The Information you have presented is pretty much flawless being the perfect amount of scientific language, by this I mean that your assignment is assessable for pretty much anyone but more importantly the information was informative. The Dot points you have used many of the section also help us understand the project better. Last but not least you have missed out on history of the pre-natal diagnostic technique which Mark Hill said was part of his marking scheme, and after reading what other people have posted on your discussion page I notice that I’m not the only one to make this comment. Apart from that nice work!!!!<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3252635|z3252635]] 13:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> You have a nice and simple page, concise and to the point. Nice drawn image at the beginning of the page to draw attention I thought it was very well done. I found that the current research was good, showed some good effort with good references to backup your info about the case studies and statistics. Ways that could be improved is the use of images, so people could understand the topic better, and some tables may help to make the information more interesting. I guess more detail and elaborate more on the history. Also i wasn't sure if there were any risks involved and how common this test is done. References were good, with a nice glossary. nice effort!<br /> --[[User:Z3224500|z3224500]] 13:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Good content, needs a bit of colour and dynamics,,pictures, to engage the viewer,<br /> The explanation of the results that can be obtained is succinct and to the point, it is a good section. There a few typos about, I was interseted in how accurate the test was for predicting pre term births and this was dealt with well in clinical research section. This had good scientific content. A table summarising your projects views on the validity of conducting this procedure, may reinforce the topic as, as you have explained in sentences, that it is a pretty crucial diagnostic tool. With a few little things like that this is a good web page.<br /> --[[User:Z3129413]] 17:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Simple, good organisation and what I like about it is that they referenced a lot of their text to backup their information which i thought was very scientific. The drawn picture was nice, but overall the page needed more images and pictures to understand the topic better. A table may have been a good choice to convey some information to make it more interesting, but it is still simple so not a very big deal there. So overall, more images, and I think more longer information under some headings would provide more extensive knowledge on the topic. References are very good, with an alright glossary. <br /> Hi guys!<br /> <br /> I’m guessing that the fetal fibronectin diagram at the top of the page is your student drawn diagram. Nice job on it. You might want to more clearly indicate that it is student drawn, though, and you should probably include the copyright statement. Also, you might want to think about adding some more pictures to your page to break up the text a little bit and make the page more eye-catching and easy to look at. I have to say that I really liked the way that you’ve set out the section on the test results. It was very easy to read. If I had another suggestion, it would be to move your glossary up to before the references – I almost didn’t notice you had a glossary hidden there. If someone wasn’t really looking, they might not spot it. Other than that, nice job!--[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 12:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --Group 4 Fetal Fibronectin <br /> <br /> Although this page had not as much detail put into it compared to previous pages, I found it much easier to read and absorb information. We must take into account that they have used a variety of sources so I am speculating that this is the more important information after researching this topic. So taking this into account I believe that this page is informative on the topic using a variety of sources, but hasn’t gone too in depth. The only advice I can give is to add some pictures or diagrams, even reproduce the information in a table to make it more interesting. Thanks guys you have done a great job. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3290040|3290040]] 10:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Group 5<br /> <br /> Group 5, the set out of your page is really good, its broken up into sections and there's lots of point form throughout which makes it really clear and easy to understand, except for current research. <br /> <br /> What could be improved: More pictures would help break it up and make it more interesting, maybe a picture of the actual procedure would be good. Some more detail could be added to give it a more scientific aspect like for example in the procedure section, and maybe a section on the historic background, I think thats part of the marking criteria. Overall i think you've done a great job but just maybe add some more detail to give it a more scientific feel.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 08:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Fetal Fibronectin<br /> <br /> Hey guys good work with this assignment. The first thing I notice was there are not as many pictures as there are in other pages. However, what was there was relevant and easily readable.I think some more detail could be given in a few sections would help convey a more technical side of this subject matter. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 17:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Group 5 = I really like how all the parts are broken down into points which made it easy to follow except for the &quot;current research&quot; . It is very structured and the picture looks great.<br /> <br /> What could be improved is adding more pictures and break down the current research into bullet points but other than that its great --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 12:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Group 5: Foetal fibronectin <br /> What I found good about this assignment was that all the information was presented in a clear and organized manner, and did appear to have a teaching element to the project. There was a great amount of research and referencing done although it did lack a bit of a “scientific feel”.<br /> <br /> What could be improved?<br /> Some extra pictures or tables could be added and also the glossary could probably be placed above the references so that it is easier to refer to it instead of having to scroll all the way down. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254433|z3254433]] 07:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hi Group 5, I liked the fact that everything is referenced, it made me feel like you have really researched what you are putting on here. Your page is very informative and i learnt alot about fetal fibronectin. i liked your student drawn diagram!<br /> <br /> improvements: definitely extra pictures. If you cant find any that you can use, start emailing the companies, this is how i got most of our permissions, as i couldnt find any with permissions. as a last resort try wiki, all of their pictures arent copyright protected. Also, probably best to go through the criteria for the page, youve missed the history altogether. Here it is for you:<br /> project outline:<br /> <br /> 1. Intro<br /> <br /> 2. historic background<br /> <br /> 3. current associated research<br /> <br /> 4. simplified description of technique<br /> <br /> 5. student drawn figure or animation<br /> <br /> 6. reference list<br /> <br /> 7. glossary<br /> <br /> 8. external links <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 03:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Reading through the information is quite easy, the headings and sub-headings makes it very clear to follow. Having questions as sub-headings makes it very user friendly to read and understand the fetal fibronectin test. However the history and development of the test is lacking. Also is the test specific for pre-mature birth detection only? please specify. The introduction also is a bit confusing where it say &quot;Fetal fibronectin is a protein based plasma that acts as a form of glue attaching the amniotic sac to the uterine wall. Fetal fibronectin is commonly present between 22 to 35 weeks of pregnancy. It is released into the upper vagina towards the onset of labour. If the test finds fFN between this period, the woman will have a chance of going into labour&quot; - what period are u talking about? when I read it, it seems to be prefering to 22-35 weeks of pregnancy as it state before, but it was mention that it was commonly to find fFN during that time, does that mean that it is common for women to have pre-mature births?<br /> <br /> What could be improve would be providing a brief history of this test and fix up the introduction so it won't be confusing to the reader.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3216889|3216889]] 13:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10MHtalk}}<br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 00:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC) There is no content on your project page and you are not making appropriate progress. I expect you all at this weeks lab and an explanation as to why no one is adding content to your project page.<br /> <br /> ===You need to have this updated before this weeks lab when I will be reviewing all projects.===<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 04:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC) This is no where not good enough, I will need to talk to you in this weeks lab. Your group has not searched the scientific literature, found information about fibronectin or related images. Unless everyone here gets going on this project you will not be completed in time.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dez--[[User:Z3318446|Seow Liew]] 09:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hi,members,i have split the work up to 3 different constituent parts and each of us will get to pick 1<br /> <br /> and do it.In addition,i have also roughly split the work up to 3 stages, which is:<br /> <br /> a)collecting the information from different sources,<br /> <br /> b)grouping the information,and<br /> <br /> c)put what we get on group page.<br /> <br /> Note:<br /> <br /> -you just need to put your name next to the capitalised heading,(e.g PART C-Dez)to indicate you are up to that part.<br /> <br /> -PART C is picked by me, so,options left are PART A and B only.<br /> <br /> -You can always add in additional info, but i think it`s better we discuss it first when we figure or find it out(the ones you cant decide if they`re your part),so that we can discussion whose part it belongs to and who should do it, to kinda maintain the flow of the content.<br /> <br /> -i`m aware that PART B is relatively short,i was outta ideas.Well, the point of PART B i make it mainly emphasizes on info related to how this test is carried out and 3rd party`s voices on this test.<br /> <br /> The 3 different parts that i have split up are as following:<br /> <br /> PART A - Jade<br /> <br /> Introduction:<br /> <br /> -what does this technique rely on?(fibronectin)<br /> <br /> -Stuff about fn ,fibronectin,like the time or stage it forms during pregnancy.<br /> <br /> -what does fn do in mom`s tummy during pregnancy.<br /> <br /> -what kind of other abnormalities can this test predict? (mainly used for the prediction of preterm birth as far as i know)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> -signs and events of preterm birth in mom`s tummy if there`s a high possibility the mom`s having a <br /> <br /> preterm birth,like,cervix dilation , fn leaks outta vagina,etc.<br /> <br /> -the relationship of fn and prediction of preterm birth.<br /> <br /> (like comparison of fn between pregnant woman who are not at risk of preterm birth and those who are,etc)<br /> <br /> <br /> PART B-Mary<br /> <br /> -how does the test work? like,steps and procedures involve.<br /> <br /> 3rd party`s voices:<br /> <br /> -what do the public doctors , pregnant woman say about this technique?-interview thing, vids( how this<br /> <br /> test is carried out)<br /> <br /> -related images.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PART C-Dez<br /> <br /> -who should take the test?<br /> <br /> -What will the results tell about risk of delivering early?<br /> <br /> -diagnostic accuracy.<br /> <br /> -side effects.<br /> <br /> -advantages of knowing the prediction.<br /> <br /> -treatments for those who tested with positive result.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> One last thing,<br /> <br /> i think our primary source would be pubmed,of course there`re others too, but then the info isnt as<br /> <br /> extensive and specific as pubmed,so go to it,look for the related journals and extract only details that<br /> <br /> you need.<br /> <br /> It`d be great if we could find more images and videos related to the info we get,by doing so,we could<br /> <br /> make the page less lengthy and readers understand it better.<br /> <br /> Looking forward to your comments,because i could be wrong.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3291079|z3291079]] 12:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> We should probably add something about the history of fetal f. Fit it in with part B?<br /> <br /> heey , sorry for the late reply.Yea, it fits in with part B , sounds reasonable.<br /> Do you have any idea what it could be? and post some links on here , if you have some with you.<br /> --[[User:Z3318446|Seow Liew]] 06:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey guys I found a really good article about that defines what fetal fibronectin is and how it is used to determine preterm labour. I Don't know if I can copy paste because of the copyright and I forgot how to make a link so the website is http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/publications/statements/C-obs26.pdf , It's got bits and pieces of everyones parts if You guys want to look through it and pick out what would be of help to you. Also I found a video. It's that doctor that goes onto the Dr Phil show but it's pretty good. It was one of few that I could find soo look at it and tell me what you think. Its website is http://www.5min.com/Video/Learn-about-Fetal-Fibronectin-Test-114223707. If you can find any videos just post them up because I don't think there are many around. Also I've found articles that question the tests ability to undermine the occurrence of the pre-term birth. I don't know if this is significant enough to add in as we are essentially talking about it's role in identifying whether or not the mother is going to have a pre-term birth or not instead of whether the doctor can stop it. Tell me what you think. should I add it in or not? You can find the article at http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/1996/05000/The_Preterm_Prediction_Study__Fetal_Fibronectin.1.aspx. --[[User:Z3252083|Mary Nicolas]] 10:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I think it is significant enough as it is an issue around this technique.I`d say add it in.<br /> --[[User:Z3318446|Seow Liew]] 07:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Yeah add this in cos you can say how it is a good technique but is not the best etc., etc. This could cover the topic of the reliability of this technique which we can look through. Some additional info i guess. --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 03:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Mary, you have one more part to do , which is the history of fetal fibronectin.( Like what inspired the Doc came up with this technique and is this technique a modified version of some technique, and of course it`d be great if you could find stuff like when the first time this technique was put to use, how was it and talk a little bit about the following tests,and important people involved.)<br /> --[[User:Z3318446|Seow Liew]] 06:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey guys, I've found an article that is a good reference describing the test...it's a good outline of what we need to know. I've found a site about fFN that may help, nothing major though. it also has a few references of articles on there that we could research. I'm going to post the subheadings up on the main page of what i think, let me know what you think but you guys can go ahead and change it :) - Jade<br /> <br /> http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1149.asp<br /> <br /> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582650/?tool=pubmed --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 03:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Oh and if we can find anything about further research about fFN, about improving it or something then we should add that in --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 03:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I will do a drawing of fetal fibronectin in the womb, there's a great picture on the video that mary posted, so i will use that as a guide --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 11:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> http://www.southernhealth.org.au/icms_docs/1197_Fetal_fibronectin_Quikcheck_in_threatened_peterm_labour.pdf Just some more info to help --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey guys, kinda getting worried, we should really get a move on with this assignment lol. I'm going to draw a picture today and put it up. And hopefully finish my part of this assignment. Any feedback? --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 00:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Another helpful site guys - http://www.ffntest.com/index.html --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> hey guys don't worry about me I'm doing my work I just want to do it all before I put it up. The test results and procedure have been really easy to put together but the history is quite difficult as there is not demarcating date or person that used it first up... if that makes sense. I'll do it but I dont think I'm going to come up with a timeline like some of the other groups. --[[User:Z3252083|Mary Nicolas]] 04:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> @Mary:it`s alright ,Mary.Put up what you think is makes sense,we can then discuss on it and edit in the remaining days.<br /> @Jade:i realise you didn`t reference your work.So, i reckon you reference your work as soon as you can.--[[User:Z3318446|Seow Liew]] 10:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> We also need more images. It's hard to find non-copyrighted pictures for fFN. i'll draw another picture if really needed. --[[User:Z3291079|Jade Seenandan]] 12:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Group_Project_3&diff=37805 2010-09-22T15:15:41Z

<p>Z3293029: </p> <hr /> <div>==Peer review==<br /> <br /> <br /> Group 3: I thought your page was very thorough and informative especially the procedure section, plus the way in which you have structured the information with concise subheadings keeps it easy to understand. Only thing is that the page lacked a glossary section which would really help the reader understand the concepts better if added. A very good use of table and pictures throughout to keep the content engaging all the way through. To improve the page, perhaps you could talk about the advantages of amniocentesis and even compare it to other techniques. Maybe you could also expand the section on current research by exploring the future prospects of this technique? but overall really good effort.<br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 15:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Group 3 - significant research into your topic evident on the page, so well done. The Abnormalities table is both concise and informative. The table along with the hand drawn images and other images makes the page more aesthetically appealing to the reader. I learned quite a lot about this procedure in one sitting which is a credit to your work. <br /> A few improvements would be to reference the Ethics and the Disorders Detected sections, maybe break up the text with the use of more tables and dot points which would simplify the content a little as it appears to be very technically dense. A glossary would help your audience in understanding the content more easily and maybe adjusting the jargon so that it's not so scientific but more conceptual. Again, like others have mentioned, some editing in terms of grammatical and spelling errors is needed throughout the page. Good effort. --z3241780 13:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> '''GROUP 3: Amniocentesis'''<br /> <br /> This project is the probably in my opinion the most scientific of all the project pages, but there are point where I felt that if I didn’t have an academic science background I would have got lost. Yet the information presented on the webpage is extremely informative and the structure of the page makes it easy to follow. Referencing for the first few sections is fine but towards the end I find that there are not as many references. The pictures which include the hand drawn pictures are really good and they help break the information into smaller section allowing time to process the information above. Like every other group there are a few spelling mistakes here and there but like I’ve stated on everybody’s pages you will pick them up on your final check. As well I noticed that you don’t really have a proper glossary and I think putting one in would be beneficial but this is just a small suggestion. Apart from that I can’t criticise the assignment. I personally think after reading your assignment the standard of my groups’ assignment should be lifted. You can really tell you have put in a tonne of effort. Well Done Guys!!!<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3252635|z3252635]] 13:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hi guys!<br /> <br /> You have a great distribution of your pictures around the page, it really breaks up the text and makes it easier to read and to look at. I noticed a few spelling/grammar errors throughout your page, though (e.g. “likelihood of baring a child” – it should be bearing) so you might want to proofread it a couple of times. It would make your text easier to read, too – your information is great but sometimes I had to read over bits a few times where the grammar was a little fuzzy. I think you’ve used the table really well to describe disorders detected by amniocentesis. Also, good job of putting the copyright statement with your student-drawn diagrams. Well done!--[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 12:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Group 3 = I really like the photos used especially the hand drawn ones and they project is very easy to read and follow. There are alot of references which indicated some serious research . <br /> <br /> What could be improved - although everything is already beautiful glossary and timeline(for history)would be better..other than that everything is fantastic.--[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 12:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Group 3: amniocentesis <br /> I found this project very interesting and it was very well written, by far it had a more scientific feel than the others. All of the images and tables were relevant and informative. I felt that I learnt plenty about the particular diseases that the diagnostic technique could find as there was plenty of detail on this.<br /> <br /> What could be improved?<br /> Probably some more pictures from sources other than Wikipedia.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254433|z3254433]] 07:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hi Guys, This project is very well written, and also easy to follow. i really, really, (really!) liked the disorders section, with the table, graph and pictures it made it really easy to follow, and interesting! when you see a picture like the anencephaly one, it makes you stop and read what its about! I also like how many student drawn diagrams there are, you have really put in a lot of effort. I definitely learnt a lot from reading this page, Thanks!<br /> <br /> What could be improved: The ethics section has no references, also the current research section seems to be copied straight from the internet, be careful with this, while it is referenced in one part, it is still plagiarism to copy and paste, you need to re write in your own words and reference. there are also a few spelling mistakes in the ethics section - waranted=warranted, phsychological=psychological<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --Group 3 Amniocentesis<br /> <br /> This group has shown a vast knowledge of the topic and has more than enough information from a number of sources. The diagrams that were hand drawn were very effective and clear to help the reader gain an understanding of the topic. On what can be improved: The size of the headings could be a little bigger to be more clear, also the same with the pictures, use them to break up the paragraphs which will make the page easier to read and take in the information. Thanks guys you did great.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3290040|3290040]] 10:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> This project was very well written and highlighted the main points of amniocentesis. The structure of it was very clear which made it easy to understand and follow. I feel that it was a good project addressing students and people who don't know much about this area.<br /> <br /> What could be improved is that there were no references in the ethics section which may be a problem. Also a glossary may be needed at the end of the page.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3291079|z3291079]] 03:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This project is very informative and did a good job in stating what the test is about and explainning how it is carried out. I really like the uses of sub-headings making it very easy to follow. However I feel that there are too little information in the accuracy of the diagnosis although the percentage is quite high, using only one study to support the accuracy does not seem to be convincing enough.<br /> <br /> What I think could be improve would be looking up a meta-study which compares the studies done on amniocentesis to provide more information about its accuracy and how reliable it is with respect to the various disorders which it can detect.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3216889|3216889]] 12:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I personally found the introduction to resemble that of an essay; I don't think an outline of what the webpage consists of is completely necessary seeing as there is a table of contents. A Glossary and proof reading are also needed. Other than that Your web page is great. The table of disorders that you have included is encompassing and simple enough to easily follow. It s a very well-rounded overview of Amniocentesis and I congratulate you on a job well done!--[[User:Z3252083|z3252083]] 12:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Page layout was nicely organised! It had logical flow and was simple to understand. History was covered well, and prodedure was explained very thoroughly and was quite scientific yet simple about the information on what happens in the lab, ie. karotyping. The student drawn images were drawn really well and shows good amount of effort that has been put into them and it supplemented the text really well. The pie chart and the picture I found was very eyecatching and made me more interested to read about the topic. Ways to improve is to expand on the current research and add a glossary at the end. Overall good job!<br /> --[[User:Z3224500|z3224500]] 12:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10MHtal<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 01:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Actually guys you know what I just realised. '''VERY IMPORTANT''' PLEASE READ THIS:<br /> Mark (Hill) told us that peer assessment was due today and we're not allowed to edit the page until the peer assessment is over which is next thursdays lab. Meaning we only have from next thursdays lab, '''23rd''', to the following monday, the '''27th''' to finish the page. <br /> <br /> <br /> This is why we were supposed to have our projects pretty much finished for today and only adjust it slightly in response to the peer assessments. So '''312''' you'll have '''4 days''' after next thursday to finish your sections and allow us to look at it to give you feedback in case it needs to be further edited before the FINAL assessment.<br /> <br /> <br /> This is going to be a very tight squeeze since you havent done anything before this morning. That is why i may have seemed harsh in my response because we have very limited time and it isnt fair to us to have contributed so late to the due date.<br /> <br /> <br /> Tegan.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 01:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Yes the previous years had more than 400 edits, this project is due in a week and a half (11 days!) and compare the amount of edits me and mark have done to how many you have done. I hope this will be enough time for you to finish your sections and allow us to have a look at it in advance to the due date and give you feedback as its a group project and we are supposed to help each other. Me and mark and have given each other feedback on our sections and helped each other to make it better, I think that is what makes a successful group project - working together.<br /> <br /> <br /> If you think the rest of the project is too simplistic tell me where my parts can be changed and ill look into it. The introduction is meant to outline the assignment and I think that's what i did. The procedure section clearly outlines every step of the procedure, I even went into the detail of the analysis of the amniotic fluid in the lab (including a diagram i drew) which I was worried was too technical for people without knowledge of the topic to understand but Mark assured me it was good and clear. I asked everybody for their opinions last week, Mark replied and told me he found it easy to understand but it had enough detail. Read it and tell me what you think.<br /> <br /> <br /> Ethical issues, no matter how complicated it is, can still be written in a clear and concise format, with clear issues that are introduced then elaborated on with references to back up the argument. Sub headings can be used I think that would break up a big section of text well, thats what I used in my sections.<br /> <br /> <br /> Are the drawings okay? It was the best I could do, I think I showed the procedure clearly and it complements the relevant sections. Do you have any ideas about pictures for the other sections? Are you going to include any pictures in yours?<br /> <br /> <br /> Tegan.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3129413]] 00:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Thankyou 3292208 duly noted. Categories will be edited and valid criticism and typos will be corrected. I found your introduction and subsequent sections lacked some scientific feel, in fact the whole page overall is rather too simplistic in my opinion. This of course can be edited as can the work I have done. Outlining Ethical issues as Im sure you are aware is rather more complicated than merely introducing the subject and listing how the proceedure is conducted, and that I have been trying to find the best way in which to present this, however I thankyou for suggesting the way in which it could be done, this will have to be considered when I edit my work. I did see that previous pages have had upwards of 400+ edits BEFORE the FINAL submission. I hope we can all edit our work to make it better which of course will be done way before the due date. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 19:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> as much as im grateful you're finally putting something on the page doing it this late, a few hours before its due, doesnt give us any time to give you feedback for it. <br /> <br /> Since im awake though for Diagnostic Accuracy one study isnt enough to give a final say about the topic, you still have to make an overall judgement of the accuracy of the procedure or even show that its become more reliable through trends over time.<br /> <br /> Ethical issues needs to be structured in a more clear and concise format, its too much writing in one block and isnt clear to the point. Its hard to tell what your key points of argument are. I also dont think using questions to the audience is a good idea, you should more so just be presenting the issues to be thought about but using hard evidence to present them instead of using rhetorical questions to just put the ideas out there. You should also mention one of the KEY ethical issues about amnniocentesis = ABORTION. Theres also no references in that section.<br /> <br /> In current research that paragraph reads exactly like in the article you referenced, we have to write it in our own words or its plagiarism. And whilst copying it you made a mistake the article says the stem cells do NOT form tumors in vivo (whatever that means which should be explained on the project page) and you wrote that they do form tumors. <br /> <br /> I hope you'll at least edit it more than a few hours before the final assessment is due.<br /> <br /> See you in the lab.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|Mark Woods]] 11:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> yea soz lack of references is my bad, i havnt dont it this week coz i kinda got a mid session on friday ive bin concentrating on. <br /> <br /> c u tomo =)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 11:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Yeah i think its looking good, slight lack of references but we can fix that after i guess. and we should prob polish it up a bit and make sure it reads heaps smoothly but we can do that after i guess. hmmm missing sections does not look good tho! looking forward to seeing everyone at the lab tomorrow. see u then<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 10:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ok last nite before peer review, do we need anythin else to do? i think it looks very gud for peer review, besides the missing sections:S we can change and add after peer review of course <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 13:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> yea. dont worry, mayb its just my computer lol<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 10:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The actual heading &quot;Risks&quot;? It looks normal on my page... <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 09:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> nah its better like that :)<br /> <br /> another lil detail i tried to fix was that the &quot;risks&quot; heading is pushed over from the picture. how do we fix that?<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 06:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey also hope you dont mind i made ur pie pic a little bigger cos i thought it would look good like that but feel free to change it back if you want!<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 03:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Oh sorry lol i forgot to tell u, he mentioned it in the last lab<br /> <br /> Hey also that pie diagram you put in maybe make it as a thumbnail and add a caption to the bottom of it saying what it is?<br /> <br /> Cant believe out of all the disorders mentioned you had to put that picture up!<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 00:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> omg y ddnt u tell me! i thought we had to hav it done for peer assement today :S. thats much better though =)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 22:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey mark your section is looking good.<br /> <br /> I really dont think we should put those other sections up they dont read well at all.<br /> <br /> Also mark said to us in the last lab that you missed that the beginning of this thursdays lab is the last time we're allowed to edit our pages and from then the peer assessments start and we have until the following lab to assess everyone elses group project so we have until then, hopefully before then we'll get a reply back from mark or . And also other groups have missing sections so they must have people missing too<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> so this is what i have, i think its gud enough for peer assessment. I plan to add more to disorders, both chromosomal n neural tube defects are gonna get more info on the main ones. I also want to expand on my table with more disorders and student made drawing of tree diagram catagorizing chromosomal defects.<br /> <br /> Tegan, do you think this is enough for tomorrow?<br /> <br /> And im ripping straight from the discussion page just to have something other the other headlines, it will b more embarrassing to have blank sections, so i figured well throw in wat he was planning to write<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 11:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> yes they can be, such as Klinefelter's syndrome, i think thats wat i sed isnt it?<br /> <br /> he got bak to my first email from like wednesday last week n sent an email, i hav since sent a couple of msgs which hasnt resulted in anything, i dont know wat to do!<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 10:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey i read the chromosomal disorders bit you added about translocations etc, cant disorders also be genetic like sex linked diseases carried on the X chromosome?<br /> <br /> Has mark gotten back to you at all? He's away this week too which is a bugger...<br /> <br /> And yes a very nice moustache lol<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 04:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> dr murray barr had a glorious moustache lol<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 03:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> haha yea it makes things a little easier :) just check out wen looking wat kind of licensing it has<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 02:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Oh geez why couldnt you warn me before! yeah thats heaps good, so much easier.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|Mark Woods]] 02:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Check out the copyright details<br /> <br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Enencephaly.jpg<br /> <br /> yes i guess its not straying from the topic.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 02:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I dont think thats straying too far at all cos those are the exact things amniocentesis prevents so it just shows how useful the procedure is!<br /> <br /> actually pics of what goes wrong during amniocentesis would be good too (i.e in risks).<br /> <br /> how can you use that photo? cos its from wikipedia? hmmm.... giving me some ideas lol<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|Mark Woods]] 02:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> It freaked me out too! We can actually use that image on our page if we want lol thanks for the picture ideas.<br /> <br /> I will be expanding on the disorders section, and its a good idea to include photos of ppl wit the ssyndromes look like. Im only concerned about straying to far from the amniocentesis topic?<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 01:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Omg mark i was just looking at the links you put in your disorder table (thats really cool by the way) and i looked at the Anencephaly one, did you see the pic on that page??? freaked me out lol<br /> <br /> hey but also are you gonna put more detail under that section too?<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 01:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey mark,<br /> <br /> Oh forgot to mention that article just lists those complications it doesnt actually go into any detail about them.<br /> <br /> Uum not sure what to do about the missing sections, I could email 312 using his student email, is everyones just their student number then @unsw.edu.au?<br /> <br /> Yeah speaking of pictures i found it really hard getting permission for pictures, thats why i drew a couple but i still want to try find one of the scientists. Yours i think would be better getting pics of people affected by the disorders you talk about? what do you think? Or you could find one maybe of the neural tube and showing the top and bottom which is closes in normal development. just some ideas.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 01:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> thanks tegan, il do that today<br /> also, wat r we gonna do about the missing sections? :S<br /> <br /> i emailed dr mark bout it but he hasnt gotten bak to me<br /> <br /> also, any ideas forstudent drawn pics i could hav in my sections?<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 11:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey Mark<br /> <br /> I just read in an article i was reading they make a comment about risks and they list a few but highlight that there are risks for the fetus and risks for the mother:<br /> <br /> <br /> # Fetal complications = deaths from abruptio placentae,infection, fetal haemorrhage, and puncture of the fetus.<br /> # Maternal complications = maternal haemorrbage, peritonitis, rhesus isoimmunization, and premature labour.<br /> <br /> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4255487<br /> <br /> <br /> If you wanna have a look and maybe add to your section?<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 02:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Yeah more detailed paragraphs sounds good, but as a summary the table is spot on.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|Mark Woods]] 02:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> yea i no wat u mean, ive confused myself a bit with wat is actually relevant to put in. I was gonna hav an intro, but how bout also paragraphs explaining the main ones? thats better place to puts pics of the chromosomal disorders n stuff.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 22:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> hey mark,<br /> <br /> table looks good, i thought it might be more detailed but i guess that covers everything. you should put some more references in though, im still working on mine, and also you referenced a website i used a couple times, on the how to reference page there's a way to put multiple references in the page from one link so check that out. <br /> <br /> also some pics would be cool for the disorders if you could find them? im gonna try find some pics for my history section, im in the process of getting permission to use a picture of cells with a Barr body, the part that shows the sex of the fetus, which Murray Barr discovered.<br /> <br /> Oh and yeah maybe put a column in for Type thatd be good.<br /> <br /> Anyways our page isnt looking as good as last years! i guess its missing a third of it though...<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 03:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> guys im working on the table, im not sure bout the columns, maybe i shud have Disorder, Type(chromosomal), Cause, Diagnostic rate using amniocentesis?<br /> <br /> suggestions?<br /> <br /> also tegan, maybe a headshot of a couple of the scientists? ur section looks finished, so that idea is only if ur at home bored :P<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 02:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> u guys shud check out all the intructions just to make a table haha<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 00:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> aight il hav most of disorders done tonight, but il put it on the project page tomo<br /> <br /> thats kinda what ive bin doin, i gave a lil intro to it before the table.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 22:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey mark yeh a table is a good idea how about having quite a simplified table first just showing the different chromosomal and neural tube defect just as a little summary then after it have headings and go into all the detail? you could also add a picture column in the table for each disorder? or put that with the bulk of info either way i guess. sounds good tho!<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey 312 how are you going with your section? Im getting worried not seeing a draft or anything of yours since its due monday! Let us know how you're going please!<br /> <br /> <br /> Tegan.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 06:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> hey guys,<br /> <br /> with disorders, I was thinking bout doing a table. ive got an intro n separate the disorders into chromosomal abnormalities and neural tube defects to talk bout in paragraph form, but i was thinking of a table to show the different disorders. what do you think?<br /> Or do u think i shud stil go through the main ones individually n then hav the table?<br /> <br /> also, a table wud break up all the paragraphs :P<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 08:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> yea, its stil not working, cud b somethin wit my computer not sure. its just not letting me edit the project page, im tryin to put the refernces in to risks.<br /> <br /> which is also weird coz im having no trouble rditing this discussion page.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 07:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Are you testing the page mark? lol. still having troubles with the site?<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 07:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> hey, the added section is great. I was gonna go through wat is being looked for for each of the disorders i look at (e.g the presence of an extra 21st chromosome). for some reason its not letting me change my risk section, so ill keep going with my other section n come back to it and itll hopefully work.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 07:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Just putting this here for myself:<br /> <br /> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2035329/<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 07:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> haha just read through it, yea the sentence cuts out, thatnks for proof reading. ill check out ur section soon, my computer has decided it doesnt want to open our project page<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 06:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey also i added more detail to the end of my procedure section just about how they treat the sample once it gets to the lab and chromosome mapping etc, do you wanna read it and tell me if it makes sense to you and isnt too much science lingo or hard to understand at all?<br /> <br /> Thanksss<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 06:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Yeah that sounds good you can still have a section on miscarriages and just mention that it is the common result of all the other complications. Just to make it a bit clearer for people who dont know anything about it.<br /> <br /> But yeh it looks good otherwise! yeah that one line i was just like what that doesnt make sense lol<br /> <br /> Oh and i just mean that sentence about the mothers immune response did you forget something on the end of it or something? I just dont understand it is all<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 06:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> whoops that was from the draft lol i confused myself reading the study. <br /> <br /> and i kinda rushed my section on the rhesus factor, i just went off wat ive learnt before. il go back over and make it more clear.<br /> <br /> I wasnt sure whether to make miscarrages its own section because its connected to all the risks, its like the ultimate bad result for all the risks, thats why i thought it should go in the intro.<br /> <br /> I will fix up the intro, seperating into actual introduction and miscarriages, wat do u think?<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 06:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey also what did you mean in the top bit where you said &quot;This cannot be attributed to the procedure of amniocentesis.&quot;? <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 06:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey I had a look, looking good. That first section though it sort of was a bit confusing when i first read it, maybe put an intro to risks and then a subheading just about miscarriages and what causes them (uterus contracting etc) and put those stats in there? The physiological risks is really good, its really clear and easy to read.<br /> <br /> This sentence doesnt really make sense when i read it: <br /> <br /> &quot;A transfer of blood would stimulate an immune response by the mother against the different blood type, the result being that the mother’s own immune system.&quot; <br /> <br /> But yeah other than that its good!<br /> <br /> Tegan.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|Mark Woods]] 06:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> just uploaded risks. definitely needs pictures or something to break up the text.<br /> <br /> wat do u guys think?<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 04:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Yeh i dont mind slipping it into mine unless you can elaborate on it and it fits well in yours? Maybe we can decide once both sections are up and have a look. But in that article in the results section its got some good statistics for you about still births and miscarriages.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 03:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> thanks for the reference help :)<br /> <br /> and i think it does fit better under eligibility, it works under my section as well because its about reducing unnecessary risk, but in this case we should keep it all together.<br /> <br /> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2464303/<br /> <br /> look through this and see whether it fits in your section, no rush.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 03:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Dammit i dont know how to put the reference in without it making an actual reference lol but have a look in the edit version!<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 03:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Okay so here is what you put in the page where you want the reference &lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;XXXXX&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; but you put the pubmed article number in the middle and when you save it all the details appear at the bottom reference section on the page.<br /> <br /> That abstract is good, i guess from that we can say something like &quot;As observed in a study carried out in the period 02-05 it can be seen that an increased risk of Down syndrome is a major reason that most women choose to take the amniocentesis test, compared to suspicious ultrasound findings which was not listed as the basis for many womens choices. And then reference that article.<br /> <br /> But about that, where it says &quot;increased risk of Down syndrome&quot; do they mean increased risk due to the mother being over 35? If you reckon thats what they mean we should probably write that instead, like write the cause of the increased risk you know.<br /> <br /> But yeh not sure did you want to add this into your risk section? Do you think it fits? I can put it in my section where i covered whose eligible for the procedure and you can focus more on the risks and the things that could go wrong like miscarriage and all that. What do you think?<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|Mark Woods]] 03:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> this is an abstact:<br /> <br /> This is a retrospective review of case notes of all pregnant women undergone amniocentesis in our department during the period 2002-2005. Two main operators performed the procedure, using 22 gauze needle usually and 20 gauze should longer needle was needed. Sevendy three patients undergone amniocentesis. The reasons for having this procedure were: increased risk for Down syndrome in 68% (50/73), maternal request in 24% (18/73), suspicious ultrasound findings in 4% (3/73) and family history in 3% (2/73). Maternal age ranged from 20 to 45 years and the gestation time that amniocentesis was performed was 15 to 23 weeks. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and culture were used in order to obtain karyotype results<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 03:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> What do you mean, percentage of mothers having children over 35 and women with histories of genetic disorders and all that? Like statistics from a specific study?<br /> <br /> For pubmed references go to the page in edit version and have a look at what i put for it, you copy and paste that and just put in the pubmed number for the article you used where the number is in the middle. The other references you have to write it out but have a look at the how to reference on the site down the left hand side.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 03:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ur rite about repeating urself. I found some research where they give percentages of occurence of each reason. I guess this allows me to be slightly more specific or technical which is should be expected from my section. what do you think.<br /> <br /> how did u do the references?<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 03:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey Mark thats looking really good! The emotional state of the mother part is heaps good i didnt realise you could find out specific hormones but thats really interesting. That beginning bit though about the guidelines present to assess whether a mother is in a top priority for the procedure I covered in my section so maybe we shouldnt repeat ourselves or it will sound a bit repetitive? I guess you could just mention there are certain women more suited to the procedure due to the number of risks but maybe focus more on what causes the miscarriage if it occurs?<br /> <br /> Also we can put more than one student drawing but i think we need at least one. We do need more pictures in it though.<br /> <br /> Hey 312, how are you going with your section?<br /> <br /> Tegan.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 14:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> general outline for risks.<br /> <br /> Risks<br /> There are risks involved in the procedure of amniocentesis. There is a chance, however small, of a miscarriage As stated before, only certain people should undergo the procedure because of these reasons. This involves:<br /> • Maternal age is considered, women older than 35 are at a higher risk of having children with chromosomal disorders.[2] <br /> • History of chromosomal disorders in the family, testing if the parents are Rh positive or Rh negative.[3] <br /> • History of previous children born with a genetic defect. <br /> These guidelines allow for properly measuring the risk of the procedure against knowledge that can be gained from it. A doctor or genetic counsellor should be consulted prior to the test.<br /> <br /> Timing<br /> <br /> Amniocentesis should be performed at a time when enough amount amniotic fluid can be taken for diagnosis without affecting the course of the pregnancy. Generally, this is around weeks 15 -19. As indicated under the procedure section.<br /> <br /> Infection<br /> <br /> There is a risk of infection with amniocentesis. It is intrusive as it requires contact to be made with the amniotic fluid by a needle through the skin, abnormal wall and uterine wall. The transfer of bacteria can occur if the needle and area of needle insertion into the lower abdomen of the woman are not properly sterile. <br /> This risk is lowered by all persons involved in the procedure properly washing their hands and working in a sterile environment. Swabbing the area where the needle is inserted is the most common method of keeping these areas clean.<br /> This also leads to the possibility of transfer of blood plasma from the foetus to the mother. This can cause major issues in the instance where the rhesus (Rh) factor of the baby is positive and the mother is negative. A transfer of blood would stimulate an immune response by the against the different blood type, the result being that the mother’s own immune system.<br /> <br /> Foetal contact<br /> <br /> The chance of the needle hitting the developing foetus is a risk factor. This can be avoided by constantly using ultrasound o see the position of the developing foetus.<br /> Psychological Risks<br /> <br /> The emotional state of the mother can have affects on the outcome of the pregnancy. Learning if the baby has conditions can lead to an emotional state such as depression and anxiety. These are the effects of results that amniocentesis gives these social issues. These can elevate levels of certain hormones which imbalances the pregnancy such as citrol, influencing concentration levels of others in the blood, activating receptors, release of adrenaline, effects on blood pressure and nutrient supply to the baby.<br /> <br /> tegan, i stole one of ur paragraphs, just coz it fit so well. il change it wen i put it on the assignment page. il better explain the hormonal changes due to stressed, thats fine. Ill put this up on the page, along with its references n then disorders by thursday night.<br /> <br /> Risks are covered pretty well in ur procedure section Tegan, so i refer to it a few times :P<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 23:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> hey the drawing is really good!<br /> <br /> Did we only need one student drawing?<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 03:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey yeh it was good, altho only half the class turned up.. The week after the break we have a new lecturer whose taking the lectures and lab too. Let me know if u think the drawing I did is ok :)<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 06:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> how was the lab yesterday guys? soz i missed it<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 00:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> history links:<br /> <br /> * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13114925 - '''The Pattern of Haemolytic Disease of the Newborn<br /> '''<br /> * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1799312/<br /> <br /> * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1050098/pdf/jmedgene00080-0015.pdf<br /> <br /> * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1806475/pdf/bullnyacadmed00267-0043.pdf<br /> <br /> procedure links:<br /> <br /> * http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/karyotyping-for-chromosomal-abnormalities-298<br /> <br /> * http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003935.htm<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> N yea uploading mine in the mid sem break =)<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 09:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> Hey Mark the breakdown for risks and disorders looks like a good structure, looks like you'll cover everything.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3129413|Z3129413]] 01:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)z3129413<br /> will be working on page all day wed and will be online here. <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 00:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC) You have the major headings and some content added to some sections (but not all) on your project page. I cannot see any additional resources, images that you have sourced from other scientific sources, nor the student drawn figure. You need to have this updated before this weeks lab when I will be reviewing all projects.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 00:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> so this is how I've divided up my sections further<br /> <br /> risks:<br /> for each risk;<br /> <br /> what is it? Why is this a risk (eg infection, hitting the fetus)<br /> <br /> how is this risk reduced?<br /> <br /> At which stage is performing amniocentesis most risky.<br /> <br /> Stats of how often problems have arise in pregnancy connected to amniocentesis <br /> <br /> Disorders:<br /> I can't just write a whole thing on each, as much as I'd like to, it'll b like having a whole section on disorders, not amniocentesis.<br /> So For each of the main disorders:<br /> <br /> intro-discription, rates in birth<br /> <br /> what stage of pregnancy can this be detected?<br /> <br /> how it is tested for / detected<br /> <br /> what do they look for? Eg variation chromosomes<br /> <br /> why do they look for this? This mite belong in ethics but by this title I mean why do they test for this genetic disorder.. Is there some level of seriousness in a family history that warrants this test.. They test for each thing individually once they hav the amniotic fluid sample.<br /> <br /> Suggestions? <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 05:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> Hey guys just wanted to remind you this is due 2 weeks tomorrow ok! <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 03:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey Mark I put on the page a picture of trisomy 21, Down sydrome, to slot in the disorders section.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 11:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Picture of the procedure:<br /> <br /> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=mga&amp;part=A1760&amp;rendertype=figure&amp;id=A1761<br /> <br /> http://adam.about.com/encyclopedia/Amniocentesis_1.htm<br /> <br /> Picture to put in from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2532964/ <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3129413]] 08:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Thanks 325.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 07:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> yea bro, il bring my camera tomo.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[Z3129413]] 06:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)z3129413<br /> The page layout is awesome... Anyone have a digi camera at the moment can you bring it thurs/fri.. can get some snapshots for the page... return camera next lab if feasible... <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 04:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Ok you guys have been doing some talk here. Now is the time to start thinking how to populate your project page subheadings. Remember that anything you do can always be undone or altered at a later date. I also see an absence here of good visual material for your project.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 02:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> '''History'''<br /> <br /> Key scientists:<br /> <br /> *'''Douglas Bevis'''<br /> ** His study of mixing Rh +ve and -ve blood and of hemolytic disease was a key event in making the technique well known. <br /> ** Hemolytic disease in newborns occurs when the mothers antibodies attack the fetal red blood cells, the antibodies cross the placenta to the fetus as the mother helps to strengthen the growing fetus's immune system, in which doing so may do the opposite.<br /> ** http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=rbcantigen&amp;part=ch4<br /> ** http://www.discoveriesinmedicine.com/A-An/Amniocentesis.html<br /> *'''Murray Barr''' and '''Ewart Bartram'''<br /> ** In the 50's the use of amniocentesis was used to find out the sex of the baby, not originally to diagnose chromosomal or neural tube defects.<br /> ** 1949 were the first to study if the sex of a fetus can be found using amniocentesis anaylsis, and with that the possibility of sex linked diseases like hemophilia (a disorder of blood clotting).<br /> ** The way the sex could be found = female cells have a cellular body attached, called the Barr body or sex chromatin, and male cells don't. This extra body, the sex chromatin, can be seen under the microscope. <br /> ** Until amniocentesis in the 1950's, the only diagnostic technique used to warn women of having a child with a sex linked disease would be statistics based on family history, which was nothing more than loose probability.<br /> ** Therefore is the sex of the baby could be found out pre-birth (along with the genomes of the mother and father of certain disorders), more reliable statistics could be calculated as to whether their baby might have a sex linked disorder.<br /> ** http://www.ohiostatepress.org/books/Complete%20PDFs/Rothenberg%20Women/05.pdf<br /> * '''Fuchs and Riis'''<br /> ** 1956 they were the first to successfully determine the sex of a baby using amniocentesis by the presence of a Barr body.<br /> * '''Steel and Breg'''<br /> ** 1966 noted that amniotic fluid cells were able to be karyotyped, chromosomes can be analysed.<br /> *'''Dr. Carlo Valenti''' = 1968 first to use amniocentesis to diagnose a chromosomal/inherited disorder.<br /> * 1980's ultrasound techniques took out the guess work to guiding the needle during the procedure.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Procedure'''<br /> <br /> ''Who is eligible for the test?''<br /> * Since the procedure is invasive and therefore not without a number of risks, numerous tests are taken before to decide whether the mother is in the top category of women with a high chance of having a child with chromosomal or neural tube defect disorders. <br /> *These pre tests include:<br /> ** Checking for abnormal ultrasound features<br /> ** Maternal age is considered (&gt;35 high risk of chromosomal disorders)<br /> ** History of chromosomal disorders in the family, Rh +ve/-ve of the parents.<br /> ** History of previous children born with a genetic defect.<br /> <br /> ''When can the test be taken?''<br /> * Most commonly during 15-16 weeks of gestation (during the second trimester), but can be done between weeks 14-20.<br /> * Second trimester amniocentesis is between weeks 15-18 (commonly wk 15-16).<br /> * Early amniocentesis is in the first trimester between weeks 11-14.<br /> ** Has shown to have a rate of 3 times the rate of miscarriage.<br /> ** Early amniocentesis has been conducted since the delay in the tissue analysis of an average of 2 weeks means if abortion is the option taken it is physically harder for the mother at a later stage of pregnancy, and emotionally as well. <br /> ** The more common time is during second trimester since there is less risk of miscarriage and complications, and if an early diagnostic test is requested, CVS is a more recommended option.<br /> * Tissue culture takes a further 2-3 weeks before a result can be found.<br /> <br /> ''Steps of the procedure''<br /> * Counseling for the mother = review of genetic family history and history of any birth defects in previous children of the mother. Mother is also informed of the risks associated with the procedure, and is able to make a decision to continue based on weighing up the risks with her personal calculated chance of having a fetal abnormality.<br /> * Area is cleaned before needle insertion with an iodine solution.<br /> * Local anesthetic may be used but since there is little pain it usually isn't used to avoid having a second needle insertion.<br /> * Needle inserted and 15ml fluid taken, takes approx 30 seconds to withdraw the fluid.<br /> * Before the needle is inserted and whilst the needle is inside the uterus ultrasound is used to avoid harm to the baby and placenta.<br /> * After fluid is taken the baby's heart beat is checked to ensure there was no harm.<br /> * Fluid is cultured, the chromosomes are mapped = called karyotyping.<br /> * http://www.nevdgp.org.au/info/melb_us/Amniocentesis_melb.htm<br /> * http://www.plus-size-pregnancy.org/Prenatal%20Testing/prenataltest-amnios.htm<br /> * Amniotc fluid taken out is centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 15 minutes and then filtered. The filtrates are then scanned in a recording spectrophotometer.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Note:'''<br /> * For '''diagnostic accuracy''', comparing this technique to other techniques, I read that Chorionic Villi Sampling (CVS) can be used earlier on in the pregnancy, but the disadvantage of that is there is a greater risk of miscarriage. So there is a pro and con for amniocentesis against CVS.<br /> ** Also i just thought to include in '''diagnostic accuracy''', what about the occurrence of false positive results?? Are there any statistics relating to false positive cases, if there have been cases what were the outcomes, has there been any incidence of abortion as a result of a false positive for a disorder? (That could be an '''ethical issue''' too, are women more wary of the procedure in case it isnt 100% reliable and there is a chance of false positives?).<br /> ** Have a look at this site too for '''diagnostic accuracy''', there's a whole section which looks really useful, it says that even if the results of the test are 'normal' doesn't guarantee a normal baby, it also explains how some chromosomal tests can be ambiguous and an unsure diagnosis can result leaving mothers with uncertainty. http://www.plus-size-pregnancy.org/Prenatal%20Testing/prenataltest-amnios.htm <br /> * For '''risks''', Evidence supporting the 1% risk of miscarriage statistic in the article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18923654<br /> ** Another '''risk''', could the stress and anxiety for the mother before the procedure be harmful to the baby? Added stress and anxiety in the chance of an abnormal result and possible abortion? Seems like a small point but I found an article about it so thought I'd let you have a look. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2859418/<br /> ** Mark also have a look at this site, it has a whole detailed section on '''risks''' which looks really good: http://www.plus-size-pregnancy.org/Prenatal%20Testing/prenataltest-amnios.htm<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 23:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Another point on ethical issues is the ethical decisions to be made if a problem is found. Is it ethical to terminate a pregnancy if it is found the child will have mental retardation? What factors are involved when making these choices? I don't think there is a right answer for everybody, so maybe its important in this section to present ethical arguements for all sides.<br /> <br /> So yea, I think you've covered all the ethical issues, nice work!<br /> <br /> Mark<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 23:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> For ethical issues i was thinking more along the lines of is the test too invasive for the mother? Not necessarily the risks (thats being covered separately) but would many women be unsure about the procedure because it is invasive and possibly painful, do people believe there are other techniques that could be as effective and more attractive to women. In this we could also do a brief comparison between amniocentesis and other diagnostic techniques, the positives and negatives of the procedure against others.<br /> <br /> Also another ethical issue would be the choices the mother would make if a positive test of a disorder was found.<br /> <br /> Tegan.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 22:54 August 18<br /> Z3129413: Yes tasks outlines are good. Diagnostic accuracy according to NATA guidelines can be accessed quite easily. NATA is the testing accrediting agency in Australia, which monitors pathology labortory testing accuracy in accordance to intesively reviewed set guidlines. Any lab operating wants to have NATA accreditation in order to display the logo on request forms etc. I think that all hospitals outsource genetic and pathology testing to semi or fully private companies which can also be part of the government health service. Those labs that are aligned with hospitals, usualy those located on the hospital campus itself, are all absolutely operating in accordance with NATA guidlines. The further question here is what are the inherant diagnostic inaccuracies associated with amniocentesis itself, if any? I dont know at this stage. Another question is , can amniocentesis be conducted in private rooms by a clinic, GP or other? Therefore are patients attending here protected by some sort of accreditation monitoring agency?<br /> I think leaving the diagnostic accuracy to involve only Australia is relavant, as it can be safe to assume that in places where medical proceedures are commonly understood to not generally fall below a certain standard, what happens in Australia applies to them also as the medical information and research is shared between these locations via published research studies from various universities etc. and are used by the various national accrediting agencies as reference material in formatting the guidlines.<br /> I will look into accessing the current plus or minus degrees of error and reference ranges used to diagnose the top most test requested for.<br /> <br /> In tackling the last two topics, <br /> <br /> A). <br /> Ethical issues and current research perhaps can tie in together (an option)<br /> - as at a glance I do not think there is much controversy surrounding the test per se,<br /> other than in terms of potential physical trauma to mother or infant due to accident at time of proceedure or malpractice, possibly instrument sterility issues re bacteria introduced into womb or abdominal wall. In light of the risks associated ( therefore proceedural ethics) in this regards,I will have to weigh it up with investigating if there are simple blood tests that can accurately diagnose the same tests requested from an amniocentesis. But this will be covered by 3. RISKS. <br /> <br /> Alternate proceedures for the tests could be covered by 'Diagnostic accuracy' I will have to look into this. Maybe other proceedures (blood tests) are more accurate for some tests.<br /> so lets call that safety/ accuracy concerns. Maybe not to bring ethics into this at this point. <br /> <br /> Propose '5.Diagnostic accuracy and efficiency'.<br /> <br /> Propose '6.Outcomes from results' <br /> Of course there is the issue of receiving a positive test result. I can cover this as the 'medical outcomes' of the tests (what it allows the parents to do in light of the knowledge). Here is a major source of ethical debate.<br /> <br /> Propose '7.Current research trends and ethical debates'<br /> State main streams of current research and the place they are being conducted, in order to highlight the fact that there may be differing laws govering research restrictions.<br /> give a brief outline of current laws (probably sourced from UN. I will aim to give specific examples of where public oppinion has opposed proposed research ideas. If it appears that personal related morality versus 'yes it is proceedurally ethical(safe to mother etc)' I will state that opinions differ in this regard. I will outline the purposes of the research and by then aiming to show any alternate methods of approaching the same research, if any, the ethical debate can then be structured in this way.<br /> For now I think this is the best way to approach this. <br /> <br /> ie, research says yes switch to uranium to alleviate the use of coal, <br /> <br /> - immediately build heaps of controversial (public oppinion- wasteful)reactors<br /> <br /> - or wait until all alternatives (public oppinion non controversial-cleaner) alternate methods have been investigated fully.<br /> <br /> In this way, I wish to show that (eg 'public opinion') has a reasonable (scientific) leg to stand on upto this point, and then if it is shown that there is no other viable option to obtain the required results from investigations, then it is purely a matter of ethics as to proceed or not or benefit from the knowledge gained by those that do, and that this perhaps is the debate as it stands in essence, as medical knowledge once gained by any means is definately going to be used by all in the long run. Thinking about this I might just paint the spectrum of oppinions and how they each believe they are doing the right thing in regards to a particular research topic. <br /> <br /> example. <br /> (rough draft)<br /> 'in contrast to the controversy involved with the use of embryonic stem cells, research (reference information gained from Scientific American.com) has been conducted into stem cells gained from amniocentesis. Political,public and scientific (give examples) oppinion has supported amniotic fluid stemcells (AFS) because no embryo is used in obtaining these pluripotent cells (reference ScietificAmerican.com). The debate continues because researchers believe that AFS can be just as effective (will outline reasons) for research as those obtained from Embryos(ref, ScientificAmerican.com). Dr.(refs) sees this as a positive however Dr.(refs) states that there is no doing without embryonic stemcells because, but it can be seen that AFS research has much to offer according to institute ... (refs)&quot;AFS can provide all etc etc. without the need to clone embryos(refs)&quot;. Religious and philosophical groups such as. support AFS for this reason.(refs)<br /> <br /> this is an example of how I would structure the arguement..<br /> <br /> hope this is all on track. see you in the lab<br /> <br /> will post links shortly.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 23:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> okay so I'll do 1 &amp; 2, mark 3&amp;4, 5,6,? if you think it's too much I don't mind picking up 5, let me know. <br /> <br /> Tegan. <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|Mark Woods]] 22:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> yea, i can do 3 and 4 thats a good split :)<br /> <br /> Mark<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 22:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Im happy to do the first 2? 5 and 6 arent too big so maybe someone can do the last 3? and then someone do 3 and 4 (Mark if you wanted to do that?). Do you think thats a fair split?<br /> <br /> Tegan.<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 13:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> hey guys,<br /> nice work with the refernces, I think those sub catagories work well.<br /> I've been looking for references, Im not sure how to link it but I was on pubmed n found something that could work for current research, its actually an alternative to amniocentesis.<br /> I figured we could use it to compare the two, and discuss why they're looking into an alternative.<br /> <br /> [[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20542474|Current and emerging techniques of fetal cell separation from maternal blood]]<br /> <br /> As for dividing up tasks, we should do that asap. I wouldn't mind getting to sink my teeth into what genetic orders can be detected, and I'm up for any other.<br /> <br /> statistics- <br /> <br /> [[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20533279|Study on population-based prenatal screening and diagnosis of Down's syndrome]] <br /> <br /> [[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20192924|Correlation between serum biochemical markers and early amniocentesis in diagnosis of congenital fetal anomalies.]]<br /> <br /> accuracy - [[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20308831 | Accuracy of real-time polymerase chain reaction for Toxoplasma gondii in amniotic fluid. ]].<br /> <br /> ethics -<br /> <br /> [[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18990991|Ethical considerations]].<br /> <br /> <br /> Mark<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 06:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Here are some links to start off:<br /> <br /> '''Historic background:''' http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/amniocentesis.html <br /> <br /> '''Procedure:''' http://www.mjbovo.com/Pregnancy/PregAmnio.htm<br /> <br /> '''Risks:''' http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-risks-of-amniocentesis.htm<br /> <br /> Main risks include 1) Miscarriage or pre-term labor, statistics have reduced in recent years. 2) Infection through the needle to the mother. 3) If the placenta is accidentally pricked mixing of neonatal blood and mothers blood may occur causing a condition where the mothers immune system attacks the fetus as a foreign body. This occurs due to a difference in blood type, one being Rh-positive, one being Rh-negative, although this can be tested before the procedure (checking the parents genotype) and extra care can be taken. 4) Harm to the baby from the needle, but ultrasound reduces this significantly.<br /> <br /> Risk of miscarriage is less than 1% according to http://www.genetics.com.au/pdf/factsheets/fs17c.pdf.<br /> <br /> '''Disorders detected:''' Amniocentesis takes a sample of the amniotic fluid containing fetal skin cells, from these they can look at the baby's chromosomes and detect any chromosomal disorders such as Down syndrome, trisomy 13 and trisomy 18. The sample taken can be tested for neural tube defects by looking at the amount of the protein alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), e.g. spina bifida and anencephaly (disorder where the top end of the neural tube fails to close during week 3-4 of development leading to portions of the brain and skull not being formed, usually leading to death before birth or very soon after).<br /> http://downsyndrome.about.com/od/diagnosingdownsyndrome/a/Amnio_ro.htm<br /> http://www.anencephaly.net/anencephaly.html<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 08:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey guys so I've rethought the structure a bit and added some detail that we should look into:<br /> <br /> <br /> '''1. Historic background:'''<br /> <br /> - When was it first used? <br /> <br /> - How was the technique developed? <br /> <br /> - The key scientists involved.<br /> <br /> - Trends in its use.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''2. Procedure'''<br /> <br /> - Who is eligible for the procedure?<br /> <br /> - Are there women/couples more suited to the test? (e.g family history in genetic disorders or previous birth with a genetic defect)<br /> <br /> - When is the test taken during pregnancy?<br /> <br /> - How is the procedure performed? Method, steps involved.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''3. Risks'''<br /> <br /> - Side effects, complications, short and long term (short term like infections, long term possible effects to the baby, abortion or induced early birth?)<br /> <br /> - Could do an advantages/disadvantages table maybe?<br /> <br /> '''4. Disorders detected'''<br /> <br /> - What components of the amniotic fluid do they isolate and analyse, and what do they test for? (I read that there are a few hundred disorders that they can test for but the parents and doctor only choose certain ones for them to test, and also there are some main ones so maybe we'll just pick the most common ones and do those, e.g. chromosomal disorders like Down syndrome and neural tube defects like spina bifida).<br /> <br /> '''5. Diagnostic accuracy'''<br /> <br /> - How accurate is the testing, statistics.<br /> <br /> '''6. Ethical issues'''<br /> <br /> - Professional and public opinions about the test, is it a more common diagnostic technique?<br /> <br /> '''7. Current research'''<br /> <br /> - Is there any current research being done to improve the procedure? There may not be...<br /> <br /> <br /> What do you guys think? If there's anything you think we should add post it up top (apparently we're supposed to post new things at the top of the page) if not then we should think how to split up the workload so we can start getting into it.<br /> <br /> Tegan.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 00:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Areas to look into:<br /> <br /> 1. Historic Background<br /> <br /> 2. Procedure, method.<br /> <br /> 3. Complications<br /> <br /> 4. Benefits, what disorders can be detected and prevented, option of abortion.<br /> <br /> 5. Current research on the procedure<br /> <br /> Anything else you guys can think of to include?<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 00:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> nice work!<br /> i think '4.Benefits, what disorders can be detected and prevented, option of abortion' would be a big one, maybe whoever takes that one just has that point, and the other two ppl take two points each?<br /> what do you guys think?<br /> <br /> hi everybody!<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 22:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Well group 3 where is your work that should have been done before this week's Lab?</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Group_Project_2&diff=37788 2010-09-22T14:40:13Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Peer Review */</p> <hr /> <div>==Peer Review==<br /> <br /> '''Please note!''' when posting your peer review, we only have two group members. the other one dropped out. Thanks :)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is and it is obvious that you have worked hard at it. Job well done.<br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 14:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Group 2: fantastic use of images, it definitely worked to your advantage in engaging your audience's attention. Over all the language used is relatively easy to follow yet informative. As someone has already mentioned, some more editing of spelling is required. The amount of attention to detail is evident in the references which are from a range of sources so well done. I particularly liked that the page covered accuracy and limitations of the diagnostic procedure. Something that lacked clarity in a few other groups. Good use of the table covering the abnormalities, maybe just adjust the cells of the table a little so the spacing appears more even as some cells have very little content while others are completely filled. What about the future of CVS? Is it a procedure that is going to continue as simply diagnostic? Is it being superseded by another procedure? Improvements?<br /> Just an idea. Well done overall. --z3241780 13:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC) <br /> <br /> <br /> '''GROUP 2: Chorionic Villi Sampling''' <br /> <br /> This page caught my attention as soon as I saw it and that made me want to read on and thus learn about Chorionic Villi Sampling. A lot of research has gone into this assignment and it’s evident in the information presented as its precise which also helps capture the readers. The amount of research is also evident in the long list of references. The webpage is actually extremely informative covering pretty much every aspect of the pre-natal diagnostic techniques. Your webpage has the most pictures and this helps it stand out as one of the best project pages. I really, really like the formatting and the tables. The images break up the information so you’re never overloaded with the amount of text. The only bit of criticism is spelling but this is extremely minor as you’ll pick up on the spelling mistakes when you go over the page. The language in is the right mixture of scientific language meaning that even people without a scientific background can understand the CVS. Great job guys you really can’t tell that only two people are in this group. It’s extremely good!!! I also really like the first picture you have, gives a page a really good feel to it.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3252635|z3252635]] 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi guys!<br /> <br /> You have found so many great pictures! Your page looks amazing. I just wonder where the files came from – I saw you put up the copyright notices, but I couldn’t find the file sources. Your timeline was great too; I really like how you put up the concise timeline and then expanded a bit on the major developments afterwards. Are the transabdominal and the transcervical pictures the student-drawn ones? If so, well done! They’re really clear and beautifully done, but you should probably label them as student drawn and put in the copyright statement. If I could suggest something, it would be that you put the advantages/disadvantages of CVS over other techniques in a table. Otherwise, your page is really easy to read, and again has brilliant visuals – great job!--[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 12:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> CVS.<br /> <br /> Group 2, your project is looking great, the first thing i noticed when reading it is that there is lots of detail which shows a great depth of research has gone into it, which is supported by your reference list. Another thing is the amount of pictures which support the information and break it up to make it easier to take in so much information at once. The disorders table provides great detail and makes it interesting with the pictures.<br /> <br /> What could be improved: You could put the advantages/disadvantages into a table form to make it even easier to understand. The reasons to use this technique could be slotted into the procedure section instead of the introduction maybe as it shows who is eligible for the procedure. The current research section could be put more into point form to make it more inviting to read. But overall really great project.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 08:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> This project is extremely well done. It seems a great effort has gone into proper referencing which also gives the impression of a thoughtful attempt. The balance of information mediums is great and the logical flow of ideas when reading through each section is perfect.<br /> Suggestion: possibly more pictures or a flowchart of the procedure itself? <br /> <br /> Well done :)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Group 2- This project had tons of photos which is super great because its much easier to follow... Most of the point made is supported with pictures ..definetly provided me a better understanding of CVS ..I agree with what others have mentioned its very informative and especially with just 2 team members .. fantastic work <br /> <br /> what could be improved = a little more reference in the &quot;result and accuracy&quot; section since it includes some percentage other than that fantastic work ..--[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 12:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Group project 2: chorionic villus sampling <br /> <br /> This group had great images and the page layout was good too especially the tables which simplified the information and made it easier to read. The information presented was very informative, scientific, and all the key concepts were covered on the topic. The project had a very impressive reference list, and it did help in my understanding of this prenatal diagnostic technique.<br /> <br /> What could be improved?<br /> I did find a spelling mistake under the heading Results and Accuracy were you have written “maybe” instead of “baby”, so maybe proof read the assignment to pick up on any other possible spelling or grammatical errors, other than that well done.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254433|z3254433]] 07:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This project was highly informative about CVS. It contained a lot of information in which it shows that a lot of research has gone into it. Everything has been covered like, what the test predicts and what risks are associated with this test. It was very scientific, yet easy to understand at a non-scientific level. I liked the external links how it directed me straight to a page of different articles about CVS. <br /> <br /> What could be improved is maybe placing the &quot;abnormalities found by CVS&quot; section towards the top of the page, because i was a bit unsure on what this test predicted in the first place. I got confused between the risks of this test and what it predicted. But I managed to understand it all once all read through. Also, a definition of a &quot;cannula&quot; may be helpful in the glossary too, i wasn't sure what that exactly was.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3291079|z3291079]] 02:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This project provides a clear understanding of the key information regarding CVS, such as how it is carried out, the risks and benfits of CVS, what it is used for as well as future research. I have find the pictures to be of a great help in explaining the procedure of CVS.<br /> <br /> One think I did notice was that, it didn't state that the test was invasive until you figure it out when you look at the pictures in the procedures. I think stating that in the introduction would make it clearer for readers to follow on with the information this projects provides having that knowledge in mind at the start.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3216889|3216889]] 12:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> This web page is definitely one of my favorites. The information that you have provided is exceptional; the reference list is indicative of your extensive research. The table of deformities was a stand out for me as it was very well set out and was a effective break from the text. You also used excellent external links that were very well placed within the web page. A slight improvement would be to include a link or a reference to the brief time line where you state the names of the authors, and as previously mentioned, reference the statistics that you have included. Other than that, I applaud you for a job well done!--[[User:Z3252083|z3252083]] 12:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --Group 2 Chronic villus sampling<br /> This webpage shows that the group was very thorough in the research due to the amount of detail that has gone into it and its many links. The layout is very well set out which helps someone understand it if he/she has no previous knowledge of the concept. The use of pictures and diagrams were done well as it broke the page up making it very easy to read and take in the information. The only advice I can give is to maybe separate the difference between normal and abnormal chromosomes and the adjacent table to allow the table more room and be easily viewed. That’s all guys and well done considering you only had 2 people working on it. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3290040|3290040]] 10:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> ===to fix===<br /> <br /> outcomes + ethics, table comparing other techniques. got confused between the risks of this test and what it predicted. flowchart or more pictures of procedure?<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> ===group discussion===<br /> <br /> <br /> I agree the page feels more &quot;in order&quot; now. yeh... its tough trying to find more information. I guess i'll expand on maybe on some of the abnormalities? I was thinking we can get pictures of the several diseases but it will probably be a little difficult due to copyright? hmm if i get new ideas from now until tommorrow i'll definately add more stuff in --[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 06:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey Jenny, i changed the order of the page around, i think it makes more sense now, before it didnt really flow from one section to the next, i think its a bit better, i tried to do it on this order, Intro, history, procedure, results, risks, advantages. that order seems to be how most wiki pages are set up, and how mark sets up his pages. what do you think? -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 02:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> i think i searched prenatal diagnosis in the search box on the left, and mark has made a prenatal diagnosis page. the prenatal diagnosis terms were on that. ive been looking at last years pages, and they have so much content, but there just isnt that much information on CVS. theres only so much you can write about it. i guess we need to start thinking outside the box and adding general prenatal stuff on here too. thats why i thought maybe another table with a timeline of other techniques on it. ? ill just do it and see how it looks... -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 01:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> hmm good idea.. btw what article did you find the terms for the prenatal diagnosis? should i incorporate that in the results section? --[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 15:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> maybe we could also do ethical issues? -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 12:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Just an idea if we wanted to add more to the page, we could do another table, with the different diagnostic techniques used - eg ultrasound, AFP, amniocentesis and CVS etc and do a timeline with when each technique can be used, what it can test for, and how invasive it is. i know its not directly CVS, but it will give a good overview of the advantages and disadvantages etc. and im running out of ideas of what else we can have on here. can you think of anything else? -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 12:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Found out its due thurs, Sorry!! im doing malformations now, but we definitely need to add more content, last years pages had over 600 revisions, we only have 200. So add whatever you think we could do to improve the page. Thanks for your help over the weekend, i did feel alone in creating the page! Looks great now though! Maybe we could look at last years pages and see what we like about them, and maybe get some ideas on how to add to our page. im trying to put alot of effort in as its worth 20% of our final mark :) ive also added to the malformations part, ill keep doing that. Thanks!! -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey can't make it to lecture today.. but if its due for peer assesment today/this week, what suggestions do you think we can improve on? hmm also whos doing the part on malformations? --[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 23:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> yeah good question.. ill see if i can find something more recent and let you know. i guess it would be. also, hope you dont mind, i put some of your references in, and added some pictures :) -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 13:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey for the section on malformations in current research, would it be limb defects? the articles I found were mostly from the 1990s so I'm not sure if I should use..--[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 12:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Yay it looks neat!!!glad you figured out how to fix the formatting.. It was rather confusing before haha. SOrry if it seems like you are doing most of the work :( I'll add to the current research to lighten off your load.i'll be working on it most of the weekend--[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 16:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> I made a table!! it took AGES but it looks good :) we probably need to spread everything out a bit, it looks a bit crowded, but getting there! i separated the risks from current research :)- Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 12:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hmm it didn't take that long.. btw I've already done it but I haven't uploaded it yet but I'll do so now... hmm by the way should the heading &quot;risks&quot; be separate from the &quot;current assosciated research&quot; heading?--[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 02:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey! Did it take long to do the drawing for the transabdominal technique? i was thinking we could do a second one the same for transcervical. what do you think? - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 02:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Im pretty sure its due monday for peer assessment, thats what it says in the course guide. did he say it was due thurs in the lab last week? hope its due thurs! that would be awesome! - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 12:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey Jill, wow only 4 days! I was mistaken that it was due next thursday. But don't wrry, I'll have the whole weekend to finish up ;)--[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 08:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi! Ive used a reference that is not from pub med, so you can copy that to use references that arent in pub med. :) only 4 days till its due! - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 01:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> some pictures we can use, this first one is Primary chorionic villi, the second picture is secondary chorionic villi, these may be helpful when describing the technique -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 09:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Gray36.png|left|400 px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Gray37.png|left|400 px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hmm so basically we do the peer review the week after mid sem break until the 23rd of september, and we paste both the review on the groups page and on your own page... also apparently the other student discontinued the course so its just us doing the project now =S --[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 03:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Yay!! looks awesome!! Sorry i couldnt be there today, could you let me know what Mark says? thanks :) - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 23:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I've uploaded the first pic... I hope it's ok and if I did the layers wrongly please tell me so I can edit... also how do you do referencing that is not from pubmed journals?--[[User:Z3224500|Jenny]] 23:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi Jenny, are you doing the drawn figure still? would you possibly be able to upload it before thursday? i have updated references for my section :) - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 08:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 00:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I have emailed your missing team member , but have not had a response yet. Your should continue to work on the project together as best you can. It seems to be progressing, though I did ask you to update your reference format and I do not see a student drawn figure. You need to have this updated before this weeks lab when I will be reviewing all projects.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi Jill, I'm working on it :) by the way have you heard from the other team member? Oh and I'll be drawing pictures for both the transcervical and transabdominal techniques..--[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 07:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi guys, only two weeks to go, we really need to do some more work, the editing at the end will be the hardest, so the sooner we finish, the easier it will be. - Jill--[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 23:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Can we incorporate some sort of timeline? what do you think? maybe we can do a timeline of embryo development and note the time that CVS is done - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 00:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Mark has kindly shown us how to reference, ill try to sort that out tonight or tomorrow - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Ive just discovered, you can use almost any picture on wiki, the copyrights have usually expired, which is why wiki can use them, just search CVS on wiki and if there is a picture you like, check the copyright and copy away!! :D -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 01:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi guys, please feel free to edit any work i have done, or add to it, or even suggest to me on this page what to add. what i have put up so far really is a rough draft and will be trying to add to it later anyway :) -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10MHtalk}}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi guys, we need to get on top of this, its due for peer assessment in 3 weeks! Im going to do related research. does anyone want to do the drawing? ill also try and get some more references and photos up, as Mark has suggested. If you want a picture, just email the website with the picture on it, thats what ive been doing, they are usually pretty good about it. let me know of any other ideas you guys might have - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 09:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 04:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC) OK there are a few references here, but you will need more than these few and there should be some related images.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Link for group assessment criteria: [[2010_Lab_1#Group_Assessment_Criteria|group assessment criteria]] - Jill--[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> For current associated research:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pd.2410/abstract<br /> <br /> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11263542<br /> <br /> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19683693<br /> <br /> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B6T7V-4BWVXPY-F9&amp;_user=10&amp;_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1994&amp;_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_orig=search&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;_searchStrId=1427646674&amp;_rerunOrigin=google&amp;_acct=C000050221&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=10&amp;md5=a3c3f2d47ad01c562a3baea8c60a48bc<br /> <br /> http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a913951525<br /> <br /> http://www.escardiocontent.org/periodicals/ejcpr/article/S0002-9378%2807%2900305-5/abstract<br /> <br /> http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/3/6/811<br /> <br /> - Jill--[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hi guys, i put up the link for Search Pubmed for our topic, did we want to assign ourselves a role to do or just see how the page goes? i thought maybe we could find a page that we like and follow a similar format, that way we know what our page will look like and can follow a layout as we go. -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 01:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> also, see this web page http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038393.htm Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 11:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> project outline: <br /> <br /> 1. Intro<br /> <br /> 2. historic background<br /> <br /> 3. current associated research<br /> <br /> 4. simplified description of technique<br /> <br /> http://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/Abstract/2010/04000/Chorionic_villus_sampling__technique_and_training.11.aspx<br /> <br /> 5. student drawn figure or animation<br /> <br /> 6. reference list<br /> <br /> 7. glossary<br /> <br /> 8. external links<br /> <br /> -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 03:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Can anyone tell me how to paste a picture from an outside source? i cant seem to figure it out. thanks :) <br /> -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 05:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> dont worry, i figured it out :)<br /> <br /> <br /> i think we should put the references list on this page to begin with to make sure we dont double up <br /> - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 05:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey guys sorry for the delay in replies. I see you have made a contribution to the topic already :) By the way, where did you find the project outline criteria? Oh and if you don't mind I can do research on the description of technique and current research. Feel free to contribute :) oh and any ideas on how to work on the drawings? --[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 15:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hello guys,<br /> <br /> So I found some journal articles that is of interest especially this one: http://apps.who.int/rhl/reviews/langs/CD003252.pdf which is long and has extensive information on the topic..<br /> So I'll be editing my section in word and will be posting some info on technique in the future.<br /> <br /> Btw here are some other articles that are of interest that can be accessed through unsw sirius:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0889854505702916<br /> <br /> http://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/Abstract/2010/04000/Chorionic_villus_sampling__technique_and_training.11.aspx<br /> <br /> http://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/Abstract/2005/04000/Chorionic_villus_sampling_and_amniocentesis.16.aspx<br /> <br /> Complications:<br /> <br /> http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2007/09000/Procedure_Related_Complications_of_Amniocentesis.24.aspx<br /> <br /> http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2008/10000/Evaluating_the_Rate_and_Risk_Factors_for_Fetal.12.aspx<br /> <br /> I'll be adding more once I find some that are useful..<br /> <br /> <br /> Oh and about the topic headings are we just going to use the ones in the assesment criteria?<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3224500|z3224500]] 15:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey Jenny!! i think its a great idea to use more headings, add as many as you like/can think of, i just cant think of any more. i think the assessment criteria is just the bare minimum we have to do, so please add more! Also, can we add the new discussion posts to the top of the page? so we dont have to scroll to the bottom every time? what do you think? (it says up the top of this page to add newer material at the top, just wondering what you thought). i really like the articles you have found too :) see you tomorrow <br /> - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Group_Project_2&diff=37786 2010-09-22T14:38:23Z

<p>Z3293029: </p> <hr /> <div>==Peer Review==<br /> <br /> '''Please note!''' when posting your peer review, we only have two group members. the other one dropped out. Thanks :)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Group 2: Your project is very impressive in content as well as organisation. The most notable thing for me was the wide use of pictures which must have taken a lot of time and effort to source. They definitely create an engaging page especially in conjunction with the use of tables and clear subheadings. The structure you have used is very effective as it allows your information to be scientific and thorough but at the same time it is concise and easy to navigate. I felt like i got an extensive overview of CVS after having read your page and the use of pictures and subheadings kept it from being a chore. I felt the history and abnormalities sections were particularly interesting. I also appreciate how you have seemed to approach this topic from all angles and not just a one-sided, all current and positive viewpoint. To improve your page perhaps you could explore the future role of CVS in prenatal diagnosis or even the role of invasive procedures altogether. Either way your page is probably up to standard as it is. Job well done.<br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 14:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Group 2: fantastic use of images, it definitely worked to your advantage in engaging your audience's attention. Over all the language used is relatively easy to follow yet informative. As someone has already mentioned, some more editing of spelling is required. The amount of attention to detail is evident in the references which are from a range of sources so well done. I particularly liked that the page covered accuracy and limitations of the diagnostic procedure. Something that lacked clarity in a few other groups. Good use of the table covering the abnormalities, maybe just adjust the cells of the table a little so the spacing appears more even as some cells have very little content while others are completely filled. What about the future of CVS? Is it a procedure that is going to continue as simply diagnostic? Is it being superseded by another procedure? Improvements?<br /> Just an idea. Well done overall. --z3241780 13:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC) <br /> <br /> <br /> '''GROUP 2: Chorionic Villi Sampling''' <br /> <br /> This page caught my attention as soon as I saw it and that made me want to read on and thus learn about Chorionic Villi Sampling. A lot of research has gone into this assignment and it’s evident in the information presented as its precise which also helps capture the readers. The amount of research is also evident in the long list of references. The webpage is actually extremely informative covering pretty much every aspect of the pre-natal diagnostic techniques. Your webpage has the most pictures and this helps it stand out as one of the best project pages. I really, really like the formatting and the tables. The images break up the information so you’re never overloaded with the amount of text. The only bit of criticism is spelling but this is extremely minor as you’ll pick up on the spelling mistakes when you go over the page. The language in is the right mixture of scientific language meaning that even people without a scientific background can understand the CVS. Great job guys you really can’t tell that only two people are in this group. It’s extremely good!!! I also really like the first picture you have, gives a page a really good feel to it.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3252635|z3252635]] 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi guys!<br /> <br /> You have found so many great pictures! Your page looks amazing. I just wonder where the files came from – I saw you put up the copyright notices, but I couldn’t find the file sources. Your timeline was great too; I really like how you put up the concise timeline and then expanded a bit on the major developments afterwards. Are the transabdominal and the transcervical pictures the student-drawn ones? If so, well done! They’re really clear and beautifully done, but you should probably label them as student drawn and put in the copyright statement. If I could suggest something, it would be that you put the advantages/disadvantages of CVS over other techniques in a table. Otherwise, your page is really easy to read, and again has brilliant visuals – great job!--[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 12:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> CVS.<br /> <br /> Group 2, your project is looking great, the first thing i noticed when reading it is that there is lots of detail which shows a great depth of research has gone into it, which is supported by your reference list. Another thing is the amount of pictures which support the information and break it up to make it easier to take in so much information at once. The disorders table provides great detail and makes it interesting with the pictures.<br /> <br /> What could be improved: You could put the advantages/disadvantages into a table form to make it even easier to understand. The reasons to use this technique could be slotted into the procedure section instead of the introduction maybe as it shows who is eligible for the procedure. The current research section could be put more into point form to make it more inviting to read. But overall really great project.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 08:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> This project is extremely well done. It seems a great effort has gone into proper referencing which also gives the impression of a thoughtful attempt. The balance of information mediums is great and the logical flow of ideas when reading through each section is perfect.<br /> Suggestion: possibly more pictures or a flowchart of the procedure itself? <br /> <br /> Well done :)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Group 2- This project had tons of photos which is super great because its much easier to follow... Most of the point made is supported with pictures ..definetly provided me a better understanding of CVS ..I agree with what others have mentioned its very informative and especially with just 2 team members .. fantastic work <br /> <br /> what could be improved = a little more reference in the &quot;result and accuracy&quot; section since it includes some percentage other than that fantastic work ..--[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 12:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Group project 2: chorionic villus sampling <br /> <br /> This group had great images and the page layout was good too especially the tables which simplified the information and made it easier to read. The information presented was very informative, scientific, and all the key concepts were covered on the topic. The project had a very impressive reference list, and it did help in my understanding of this prenatal diagnostic technique.<br /> <br /> What could be improved?<br /> I did find a spelling mistake under the heading Results and Accuracy were you have written “maybe” instead of “baby”, so maybe proof read the assignment to pick up on any other possible spelling or grammatical errors, other than that well done.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254433|z3254433]] 07:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This project was highly informative about CVS. It contained a lot of information in which it shows that a lot of research has gone into it. Everything has been covered like, what the test predicts and what risks are associated with this test. It was very scientific, yet easy to understand at a non-scientific level. I liked the external links how it directed me straight to a page of different articles about CVS. <br /> <br /> What could be improved is maybe placing the &quot;abnormalities found by CVS&quot; section towards the top of the page, because i was a bit unsure on what this test predicted in the first place. I got confused between the risks of this test and what it predicted. But I managed to understand it all once all read through. Also, a definition of a &quot;cannula&quot; may be helpful in the glossary too, i wasn't sure what that exactly was.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3291079|z3291079]] 02:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This project provides a clear understanding of the key information regarding CVS, such as how it is carried out, the risks and benfits of CVS, what it is used for as well as future research. I have find the pictures to be of a great help in explaining the procedure of CVS.<br /> <br /> One think I did notice was that, it didn't state that the test was invasive until you figure it out when you look at the pictures in the procedures. I think stating that in the introduction would make it clearer for readers to follow on with the information this projects provides having that knowledge in mind at the start.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3216889|3216889]] 12:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> This web page is definitely one of my favorites. The information that you have provided is exceptional; the reference list is indicative of your extensive research. The table of deformities was a stand out for me as it was very well set out and was a effective break from the text. You also used excellent external links that were very well placed within the web page. A slight improvement would be to include a link or a reference to the brief time line where you state the names of the authors, and as previously mentioned, reference the statistics that you have included. Other than that, I applaud you for a job well done!--[[User:Z3252083|z3252083]] 12:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --Group 2 Chronic villus sampling<br /> This webpage shows that the group was very thorough in the research due to the amount of detail that has gone into it and its many links. The layout is very well set out which helps someone understand it if he/she has no previous knowledge of the concept. The use of pictures and diagrams were done well as it broke the page up making it very easy to read and take in the information. The only advice I can give is to maybe separate the difference between normal and abnormal chromosomes and the adjacent table to allow the table more room and be easily viewed. That’s all guys and well done considering you only had 2 people working on it. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3290040|3290040]] 10:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> ===to fix===<br /> <br /> outcomes + ethics, table comparing other techniques. got confused between the risks of this test and what it predicted. flowchart or more pictures of procedure?<br /> <br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> ===group discussion===<br /> <br /> <br /> I agree the page feels more &quot;in order&quot; now. yeh... its tough trying to find more information. I guess i'll expand on maybe on some of the abnormalities? I was thinking we can get pictures of the several diseases but it will probably be a little difficult due to copyright? hmm if i get new ideas from now until tommorrow i'll definately add more stuff in --[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 06:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey Jenny, i changed the order of the page around, i think it makes more sense now, before it didnt really flow from one section to the next, i think its a bit better, i tried to do it on this order, Intro, history, procedure, results, risks, advantages. that order seems to be how most wiki pages are set up, and how mark sets up his pages. what do you think? -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 02:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> i think i searched prenatal diagnosis in the search box on the left, and mark has made a prenatal diagnosis page. the prenatal diagnosis terms were on that. ive been looking at last years pages, and they have so much content, but there just isnt that much information on CVS. theres only so much you can write about it. i guess we need to start thinking outside the box and adding general prenatal stuff on here too. thats why i thought maybe another table with a timeline of other techniques on it. ? ill just do it and see how it looks... -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 01:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> hmm good idea.. btw what article did you find the terms for the prenatal diagnosis? should i incorporate that in the results section? --[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 15:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> maybe we could also do ethical issues? -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 12:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Just an idea if we wanted to add more to the page, we could do another table, with the different diagnostic techniques used - eg ultrasound, AFP, amniocentesis and CVS etc and do a timeline with when each technique can be used, what it can test for, and how invasive it is. i know its not directly CVS, but it will give a good overview of the advantages and disadvantages etc. and im running out of ideas of what else we can have on here. can you think of anything else? -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 12:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Found out its due thurs, Sorry!! im doing malformations now, but we definitely need to add more content, last years pages had over 600 revisions, we only have 200. So add whatever you think we could do to improve the page. Thanks for your help over the weekend, i did feel alone in creating the page! Looks great now though! Maybe we could look at last years pages and see what we like about them, and maybe get some ideas on how to add to our page. im trying to put alot of effort in as its worth 20% of our final mark :) ive also added to the malformations part, ill keep doing that. Thanks!! -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey can't make it to lecture today.. but if its due for peer assesment today/this week, what suggestions do you think we can improve on? hmm also whos doing the part on malformations? --[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 23:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> yeah good question.. ill see if i can find something more recent and let you know. i guess it would be. also, hope you dont mind, i put some of your references in, and added some pictures :) -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 13:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey for the section on malformations in current research, would it be limb defects? the articles I found were mostly from the 1990s so I'm not sure if I should use..--[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 12:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Yay it looks neat!!!glad you figured out how to fix the formatting.. It was rather confusing before haha. SOrry if it seems like you are doing most of the work :( I'll add to the current research to lighten off your load.i'll be working on it most of the weekend--[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 16:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> I made a table!! it took AGES but it looks good :) we probably need to spread everything out a bit, it looks a bit crowded, but getting there! i separated the risks from current research :)- Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 12:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hmm it didn't take that long.. btw I've already done it but I haven't uploaded it yet but I'll do so now... hmm by the way should the heading &quot;risks&quot; be separate from the &quot;current assosciated research&quot; heading?--[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 02:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey! Did it take long to do the drawing for the transabdominal technique? i was thinking we could do a second one the same for transcervical. what do you think? - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 02:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Im pretty sure its due monday for peer assessment, thats what it says in the course guide. did he say it was due thurs in the lab last week? hope its due thurs! that would be awesome! - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 12:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey Jill, wow only 4 days! I was mistaken that it was due next thursday. But don't wrry, I'll have the whole weekend to finish up ;)--[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 08:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi! Ive used a reference that is not from pub med, so you can copy that to use references that arent in pub med. :) only 4 days till its due! - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 01:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> some pictures we can use, this first one is Primary chorionic villi, the second picture is secondary chorionic villi, these may be helpful when describing the technique -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 09:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Gray36.png|left|400 px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> [[File:Gray37.png|left|400 px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hmm so basically we do the peer review the week after mid sem break until the 23rd of september, and we paste both the review on the groups page and on your own page... also apparently the other student discontinued the course so its just us doing the project now =S --[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 03:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Yay!! looks awesome!! Sorry i couldnt be there today, could you let me know what Mark says? thanks :) - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 23:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I've uploaded the first pic... I hope it's ok and if I did the layers wrongly please tell me so I can edit... also how do you do referencing that is not from pubmed journals?--[[User:Z3224500|Jenny]] 23:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi Jenny, are you doing the drawn figure still? would you possibly be able to upload it before thursday? i have updated references for my section :) - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 08:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 00:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC) I have emailed your missing team member , but have not had a response yet. Your should continue to work on the project together as best you can. It seems to be progressing, though I did ask you to update your reference format and I do not see a student drawn figure. You need to have this updated before this weeks lab when I will be reviewing all projects.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi Jill, I'm working on it :) by the way have you heard from the other team member? Oh and I'll be drawing pictures for both the transcervical and transabdominal techniques..--[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 07:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi guys, only two weeks to go, we really need to do some more work, the editing at the end will be the hardest, so the sooner we finish, the easier it will be. - Jill--[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 23:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Can we incorporate some sort of timeline? what do you think? maybe we can do a timeline of embryo development and note the time that CVS is done - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 00:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Mark has kindly shown us how to reference, ill try to sort that out tonight or tomorrow - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Ive just discovered, you can use almost any picture on wiki, the copyrights have usually expired, which is why wiki can use them, just search CVS on wiki and if there is a picture you like, check the copyright and copy away!! :D -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 01:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi guys, please feel free to edit any work i have done, or add to it, or even suggest to me on this page what to add. what i have put up so far really is a rough draft and will be trying to add to it later anyway :) -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10MHtalk}}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi guys, we need to get on top of this, its due for peer assessment in 3 weeks! Im going to do related research. does anyone want to do the drawing? ill also try and get some more references and photos up, as Mark has suggested. If you want a picture, just email the website with the picture on it, thats what ive been doing, they are usually pretty good about it. let me know of any other ideas you guys might have - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 09:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 04:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC) OK there are a few references here, but you will need more than these few and there should be some related images.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Link for group assessment criteria: [[2010_Lab_1#Group_Assessment_Criteria|group assessment criteria]] - Jill--[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> For current associated research:<br /> <br /> <br /> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pd.2410/abstract<br /> <br /> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11263542<br /> <br /> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19683693<br /> <br /> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B6T7V-4BWVXPY-F9&amp;_user=10&amp;_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1994&amp;_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_orig=search&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;_searchStrId=1427646674&amp;_rerunOrigin=google&amp;_acct=C000050221&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=10&amp;md5=a3c3f2d47ad01c562a3baea8c60a48bc<br /> <br /> http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a913951525<br /> <br /> http://www.escardiocontent.org/periodicals/ejcpr/article/S0002-9378%2807%2900305-5/abstract<br /> <br /> http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/3/6/811<br /> <br /> - Jill--[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hi guys, i put up the link for Search Pubmed for our topic, did we want to assign ourselves a role to do or just see how the page goes? i thought maybe we could find a page that we like and follow a similar format, that way we know what our page will look like and can follow a layout as we go. -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 01:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> also, see this web page http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038393.htm Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 11:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> project outline: <br /> <br /> 1. Intro<br /> <br /> 2. historic background<br /> <br /> 3. current associated research<br /> <br /> 4. simplified description of technique<br /> <br /> http://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/Abstract/2010/04000/Chorionic_villus_sampling__technique_and_training.11.aspx<br /> <br /> 5. student drawn figure or animation<br /> <br /> 6. reference list<br /> <br /> 7. glossary<br /> <br /> 8. external links<br /> <br /> -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 03:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Can anyone tell me how to paste a picture from an outside source? i cant seem to figure it out. thanks :) <br /> -Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 05:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> dont worry, i figured it out :)<br /> <br /> <br /> i think we should put the references list on this page to begin with to make sure we dont double up <br /> - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 05:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey guys sorry for the delay in replies. I see you have made a contribution to the topic already :) By the way, where did you find the project outline criteria? Oh and if you don't mind I can do research on the description of technique and current research. Feel free to contribute :) oh and any ideas on how to work on the drawings? --[[User:Z3224500|Jenny Huang]] 15:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hello guys,<br /> <br /> So I found some journal articles that is of interest especially this one: http://apps.who.int/rhl/reviews/langs/CD003252.pdf which is long and has extensive information on the topic..<br /> So I'll be editing my section in word and will be posting some info on technique in the future.<br /> <br /> Btw here are some other articles that are of interest that can be accessed through unsw sirius:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0889854505702916<br /> <br /> http://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/Abstract/2010/04000/Chorionic_villus_sampling__technique_and_training.11.aspx<br /> <br /> http://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/Abstract/2005/04000/Chorionic_villus_sampling_and_amniocentesis.16.aspx<br /> <br /> Complications:<br /> <br /> http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2007/09000/Procedure_Related_Complications_of_Amniocentesis.24.aspx<br /> <br /> http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2008/10000/Evaluating_the_Rate_and_Risk_Factors_for_Fetal.12.aspx<br /> <br /> I'll be adding more once I find some that are useful..<br /> <br /> <br /> Oh and about the topic headings are we just going to use the ones in the assesment criteria?<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3224500|z3224500]] 15:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey Jenny!! i think its a great idea to use more headings, add as many as you like/can think of, i just cant think of any more. i think the assessment criteria is just the bare minimum we have to do, so please add more! Also, can we add the new discussion posts to the top of the page? so we dont have to scroll to the bottom every time? what do you think? (it says up the top of this page to add newer material at the top, just wondering what you thought). i really like the articles you have found too :) see you tomorrow <br /> - Jill --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Group_Project_1&diff=37766 2010-09-22T13:57:21Z

<p>Z3293029: </p> <hr /> <div>==Peer review==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Group 1:<br /> Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition.<br /> One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 13:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Group 1- well done overall on your page, I learned a lot from this page alone. The table comparing the different types of transducers and scans, and use of images made the page both engaging and aesthetically appealing. Placing links for further information under each section is something that would probably be useful for all groups on their pages. So well done on that. Your use of tables was very helpful allowing the reader to grasp a conceptual understanding. The abnormalities section is very interesting and highlights the importance of this procedure in prenatal diagnosis. Judging by your references, and detail there has been some extensive research which is great. <br /> Something that could be improved would be the How It Works section where the content suddenly becomes quite technically dense. I would suggest simplifying it a little and maybe tailoring the jargon to your audience a little more. That is, someone who knows very little about Ultrasound and it's technicalities. Also, some images under the Abnormalities section would also be helpful --Felicia Ton 13:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> '''GROUP 1: Ultrasound''' <br /> <br /> The fact that the layout and format of the web page is well formatted makes it easy to follow. It has a really good flow. The tables in the section, especially the table describing the different transducer types made it extremely easy to understand and also the picture sort of make you want to read what the pictures are about. The images that you have on your webpage are really well explained yet as a criticism you could have more pictures for example pictures of the disorders that ultrasounds detect. The page has an extremely scientific feel so you don’t have to change anything there. There are some spelling mistakes like the people above have stated but that shouldn’t be a big problem as you will probably find these in your final check. I really found informative but is sort of thought that maybe if somebody without a background in science would struggle certain parts. Putting it under different sub headings also made this extremely easy to follow as well but all in all I really liked the page. Nice Work!!!<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3252635|z3252635]] 13:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Ultrasound.<br /> <br /> You guys have a very informative page, nicely organised and easy to follow. I found the Tables were very neat and eye catching and not cluttered. The technical aspects of ultrasound were covered really well, as well as the images accompanying them. Images were described in depth alongside the thumbnail.. however it wasn't too clear if there was a student drawn image on the page. Abnormalities were covered really well also, the information was easy to understand yet still being scientific in the language. I also liked how there were useful links throughout the page that relate to their topic. Things that could be improved would be on the Current Research heading, could be longer. References were good, with a nice glossary. overall, very nice :D<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3224500|z3224500]] 12:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Group 1, your project is very detailed and there seems to be lots of research gone into it, also evident by your reference list. Your procedure section is very detailed and scientific, it maybe could be broken into more point form to make it easier to read. Your detail in abnormalities shows extensive research, the ultrasound specific heart defects is particularly interesting as it is a unique set of disorders that can be detected compared to the other techniques. Your current research is really interesting as well and easier to understand than some of the other projects. Overall, great job.<br /> <br /> What could be improved: More detail in the history section, the time line gives a good overview but maybe some more detail on the key scientists and research leading to the procedure, besides a link to another page. Maybe some more pictures other than the ultrasound ones, like of disorders, or of the actual ultrasound machines would be good to break up the page. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 09:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> The format of this page is excellent, there is a good balance of figures, tables and text. The clear and concise language consistent throughout makes the page accessible for anyone reading. <br /> <br /> The project is great, maybe throw in a graph somewhere? It's a good visual tool that I think would compliment the information you have effectively. This is more of a suggestion than a critique, nice work.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> GROUP PROJECT 1: ultrasound <br /> <br /> Firstly I thought group 1s layout was great and very well organised, I particularly appreciated the external link that were quite interesting and informative. Also the relevant images on the web page helped in my understanding of the topic. I do think that I have learnt something about ultrasonography especially about the history and the science behind the equipment and techniques used. The only thing that I was left wanting to know was the accuracy of the ultrasound for each test. <br /> <br /> What would improve this project? nothing really, good job guys.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254433|z3254433]] 07:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hi Guys!!<br /> <br /> Love the page, the layout is really easy to follow, everything seems to be in the right order and flow really well. i could easily follow what you have written. i really like the table on the types of transducers, i actually had no idea there were different kinds! One thing i found especially impressive, was that you have taken the time to explain every image when you click on it. this would've taken a lot of time and effort that isn't immediately available to see, but helpful if you need to know more about the image, you just click on it. <br /> <br /> What could be improved: in one of the tables, under the heading minor signs of trisomies, pleuxs should be plexus. i didnt see any other spelling mistakes though. Also, it seems only one person has contributed most of the work? do you have three in your group? i found this to be the case for most pages. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 23:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> I thought this project was very well done, and was easy to understand. The headings helped. I especially like the table describing the different sorts of transducers, the pictures made it easier to know what you were talking about. It was overall very informative as i learnt about how many different ways you can identify the embryo and how many defects can be detected. <br /> <br /> What could be improved is perhaps a picture or two showing a defect, just to break up the amount of information presented. But otherwise this project was very good. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3291079|z3291079]] 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The website has a very clear structure making it easy to read. The contents are adequate for providing a basic overview of ultrasound to the general public. There is a good balance of text and pictures providing examples of various types of ultrasound images. I think it is a great idea to tables to present the different types of transducers used in ultrasound as it makes it very easy to spot and compare the different. From an academic point of view I find the website very educational, however from a practical point of view the site did not mention any cost or preparation required for the test. <br /> <br /> What I think could be improve is adding a summary of the benefits of ultrasound and a table of when, over the course of pregnancy, should ultrasound be used with respect to its uses for prenatal diagnoses. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3216889|3216889]] 11:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This web page is very well set out. The information is clear and the subheadings are indicative of the historical development and the use of the ultrasound. I like the table format for the different types of ultrasounds as it provided a break from the text which in some parts seemed slightly superfluous. Overall this is an excellent webpage; it's educational value is high, it makes excellent use of external pages and it has an extensive glossary page which was greatly appreciated. Good job guys!!--[[User:Z3252083|Mary Nicolas]] 12:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Group 1 Ultrasound<br /> The topic throughout the webpage was very clearly described, mainly due to the organisation of headings and sub-0headings. The reader will definitely have a clear understanding of ultrasound after looking at this page as the topic was explored very broadly. Also helping understand the content was a great use of tables, pictures and diagrams which gave me an understanding of the concept that text couldn’t alone e.g diagram of different transducers. However the text in some cases (transducers) was too bulky and may need to be broken up into points or more paragraphs or more sub-headings. Well done people the page looks really good.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3290040|3290040]] 10:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> sam .. so how's it .. now i am verrrrrrrrry worried .. ??? please reply la .. is everything ok ? or ?? thanks .. anyways la .. am goin to bed ... if u want anything just call la .. :) .. cya tomz .. bye --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 16:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Omg .. i just saw .. as soon as i click done .. i saw this .. omg i am so sorry .. u had to do them all alone .. i feel super bad la .. and is my part to less ?? u want me to do anything else?? and urs look so lovely with tables and all lol :)--[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> No worries. I'll do a quick grammar check, but it all looks fine. I've worked with what I have to put together the bulk of what Alix was supposed to be doing. I hope it's okay. --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 16:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> sorry la .. i think its ok now .. i tried .. i was like .. so stressed when no button seemed to work .. but luckily everything is fine now and yes .. thats the best i can do la .. as usual .. please feel free to change to add or do anything la .. thank u so much .. will cya tomz. :) --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey sam .. I edited everything but i don't know why i could not save .. everytime i press save the error message pops up .. i did put in the PUBMED Id and edited the reference but it just keep showing me the error message even after the log off and log in again .. I cant understand it .. can i send the pubmed id to your email ?? i already edited everything ... omg .. I will send the whole section to your email . .can you please try to copy and paste it tomorrow morning ?? thank u .. :) --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 14:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey i am gonna put a very non-finished version for u to see first so that u feel better lol .. i am doing the refs .. the everything now .. but just for you to see where this is goin .. i will put it up now .. and if the content is too less .. please tell me now lol ..but i think thats pretty much how much i can come up with .. i will try to do the history more tonight .. :) !! cya --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 13:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hi! Oh good, I'm sorry. I was just panicking a little. For an example about the history, look here: [http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/cellbiology/index.php?title=Group_5_Project_-_Electron_Microsopy link]. This is pretty intense, but it shows both what happened that year and why it's relevant. It also shows the referencing and how to code it. I know it's going to be hard; again, I've got family in hospital and assignments and exams too, but we have no choice here. We have to find time. Anyway, talk tomorrow. --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 13:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey there ... of course i am doing the current research thing la .. i am just a little worried about the ref lol .. and thank u for fixing everything up .. its much readable now .. i know that the history needs to be related to ultrasound but then it wouldnt be a time line ... But yeah we have to do alix part ?? now thats gonna be very difficult because i have 2 assignments coming up omg .. i am getting very worried !! anywayz i wil ltalk to you tomorrow as well and i think i will be done in about an hour or so but yes .. if u need anything just call me la .. thanks .. bye --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 13:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey Nany. I'm going to just go and fix a few grammar things in your intro and timeline, if that's okay. Other than that, good... though wee need to explain why those historical points are relevant for ultrasound. I'll talk to you tomorrow, at any rate. Also, I finally managed to get through to Alix and she apparently has dropped the course, so we have to do her bit too. It's horribly late notice, I know, but we have to make the best of it. I'll see what I can do before tomorrow, but it's going to be hard. I looked at the page and you haven't put anything up but the history yet. I really, really hope you are doing the current research bit right now because I know we're both busy but I've managed to do an awful lot for my part, and with Alix gone we don't have much, and this is not a good standard. Sorry to sound so grim, but we're not in a good place. I'm counting on you. See you tomorrow. --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 12:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey sam .. I have already added a little intro ... and Its not an actual publication or an article its from a website .. so how do i reference that ?? and the website is [http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/history1.html History] this one .. errm ?? sorry la .. :)--[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 11:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> As I mentioned today, the timeline is great. I think an intro to it/overview would also be great, and references should be added in ASAP. Alix, we still haven't heard from you... are you okay? I'm a little concerned now. Are you still doing the course? Please, get back to me when you can! --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 07:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey guys ,.. i have uploaded the time line a couple of days back .. i dont know if its ok or not la .. so if u think something is wrong please tell me or feel free to change or edit anything la .. :) thank u ... --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 07:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC) nany<br /> <br /> Hey guys! So I've gotten permission to use some ultrasound images and have uploaded them to the site. I'm still arguing with the scanner, but I will definitely have those drawn diagrams up by Sunday afternoon, even if I have to take photos of them and upload them that way (it would be sooner, but with my Grandmother in hospital and work I have some time issues). I have four images left to upload: a drawing of an ultrasound scan line, and the three transducers and ultrasound scan patterns. I'm glad you liked the table Nany, I hoped it would make things simple. How are you going with your timeline?<br /> <br /> Alix, are you okay? We haven't heard from you in a while, and this is due for peer assessment on Thursday. I know we agreed that due to time constrictions on all our parts we would do the majority of out putting-information-up this week - are you going okay with your part?--[[User:Z3252833|Samantha Guinn]] 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey there ...Sam i read through ur part and loved the table .. made things clear but i didnt get a chance to read through all the details yet and dont worry about my part it will be up very soon .. Tomorrow morning is my flight so the next time i can come online is friday morning (when i reach sydney) and i hope everything will be up by friday night if i am not too jetlagged lol .. anywayz .. I just wanted to update la .. :) --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 18:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Nany<br /> <br /> <br /> Hi again! Hope you're all having a lovely break. I've put up a revised version of my section, and added some extra stuff. I've drawn the diagrams we need freehand since I find it easier than digitally, and am in the process of scanning them. They'll be up soon. Also, I'm in negotiations over some images for us to use. If you guys could have a read through of it and let me know what you think, that'd be awesome. Thanks! --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 01:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey guys..I read your part sam and i loved the glossary ...and u mentioned u sent emails .. I didnt get any la .. I am sorry but is it to Nany_van@hotmail.com because i really did not get anything..and yes for my part i will put it up soon may be this weekend (is that too late??? lol) and what did i miss from today's lab ? did mark mention anything about the gorup work ? are we goin ok ? thanks guy cya soon nany --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 01:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey guys! I've put up part of my draft so that we have something up on the page. I know it's heavy on text but hopefully I'm going to cut that down a little, when I put the diagrams up and it becomes clearer. I'm in the process of making some diagrams for the kinds of scans, and I've emailed some people about ultrasound pictures, but they've not gotten back to me yet (so all those '(DIAGRAM)' bits will be replaced with actual pictures soon!). Worst comes to worst and I can't find a source of good ultrasound pictures in the public domain other than Wiki Commons, I'll draw more diagrams myself. Also, I haven't put up my stuff about Doppler or 3D ultrasound or the comparison of the types yet; they're coming - I have the info, I'm just trying to make it as clear and concise as possible. In other words, I'm getting there. I'll sort out the references soon too; I have another paper or two of interest but I'm having trouble downloading the whole things rather than just the abstracts. It's a computer thing and I'll sort it out soon. Also, I've shoved some terms into the glossary - tell me if they make sense. Hope you're going well! --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 23:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dear mark .. I have already sent you an email regarding my leave on the next lab.. And as i've previously mentioned to my team mates i will still contribute to the group work but i just wanted to inform them that the reply might not be as instant as when i am here because of time differences and clashes on schedule ..--[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 11:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 00:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Z3305561 You should contact me if you will be absent from laboratories. Also there is no reason that you cannot still contribute to group work as long as you have internet access. It is important that you complete your contributions before the peer assessment in the first week after the mid-semester break.<br /> <br /> ===Importantly there is currently no content on your project page.===<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey guys i have to tell u something .. i will not be here for the next lab because i have to fly back to thailand for some issue thing .. Actually my flight was initially booked on thursday but now i have to go on wednesday so i wont be here for this week's lab .. I am soooo suppper sorry but of course we can still chat and talk and u know exchange infromation .. and u will definetly hear from me even when i am in thailand .. I have internet la lol .. my email is nany_van@hotmail.com so i think that might be a faster way to contact me .. I have already started on my part and will put the content asap .. (may be a couple of days..) and u guys can change or do what ever u guys want la .. I know it would be a little harder since i am in thailand to have instant reply but feel free to add , delete anything la .. and yes I will say this again .. I am deeply sorry i will have to miss the lab but if theres anything i can do pleasssssse let me know la and if i am behind in the project please let me know too la !!! ... cya guys soon :) !! well that is after the midsem <br /> <br /> p.s. anyone wants anything from thailand ?? lol !!! nany---[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 09:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey alix ... get well soon la .. and don't worry about the lab ..!!! I am trying to search the &quot;relevant resources&quot; too .. like .. I was up the whole week and couldnt do much .. sorry about that guys .. anyways .. cya soon :) nany---[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 23:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> I hope you feel better soon! I've been searching for public domain images; I'm finding them hard to come by. Here, however, is a link to a number of public domain images available on Wikipedia commons; they're not stunning but may be helpful: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&amp;search=ultrasound Potential ultrasound public domain images] And here is another site I've found to be useful in explaining the basics of ultrasound : [http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/ Obstetric Ultrasound: A comprehensive guide]--[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 23:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hi, I am also sorry but I am sorry because Im not going to be there this morning as I'm not too well. However if you need me I will be next to my computer for the duration of the lab and can be contacted via this discussion board. Sorry again.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3288088|z3288088]] 21:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey guys .. I am sorry i haven't done much either .. and i am so sorry to hear that ur grandmother fell down .. Don't worry about it and i think our first deadline is due not next week but after the midsemester break ...!!! and i am gathering information for my part too .. its not structured yet .. will do it during this weekend too .. :) nany--[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 11:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi guys. I'm sorry I haven't written anything on the page this week. I had planned to have a draft yesterday, after my anatomy exam was done, but my grandmother had a fall yesterday afternoon and is now in hospital and can barely walk, so I'm afraid I didn't get to putting up my draft, and probably won't have anything up until the weekend. I know our first deadline is next week; I definitely have time on the weekend to get things done, and will have my draft up ASAP. Sorry, again! I'm doing what I can right now. I am designing a drawing for our page to explain the workings of ultrasound; it will be up be next week too. Also, in regards to Mark Hill's comment that we have no reference material, I have previously stated that I am currently using old-school information - hard copies of books - as reference, and they can't be linked to on this page (though I did give a link to on of the books I'm using). I'll tell you guys what I know when I see you, and you'll see the information when I have the draft up, but unitl then, there's not much I can do. See you tomorrow!--[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 10:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC) <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 04:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I cannot see any reference material here, other than the infection ref, or related images.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> So as discussed<br /> We are each working on the following;<br /> <br /> Nany;<br /> <br /> • History<br /> <br /> • Current Research and Future Directions<br /> <br /> Samantha;<br /> <br /> • Science<br /> <br /> • Risks and Regulations<br /> <br /> Alix;<br /> <br /> • Uses<br /> <br /> • Advantages vs. Disadvantages<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3288088|z3288088]] 00:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hello again! No problems, Nany. Nice start with the history; I think it's going to be easier to talk tomorrow than to write it here. It's hard to show what I've got since at the moment I'm mostly using a completely non-digital (and thus non-linkable) resource; a book called Diagnostic Ultrasound: Principles and Intstruments. Thihttp://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Group_Project_1&amp;action=edits is it, but you can't preview it online:<br /> <br /> [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=kK2PQgAACAAJ&amp;dq=diagnostic+ultrasound+principles+and+instruments&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=htBrTMaNFNO6ce6t8Fo&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA]<br /> <br /> Also, this site by Discovery Health gives a simple overview of the workings of Ultrasound: [http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/tests-treatment/ultrasound2.htm Discovery Health Ultrasound]<br /> <br /> See you tomorrow!--[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 12:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey guys...sorry for the last minute thing la ... its been a really hectic week and yes i do totally agree with the &quot;table&quot; idea since if it was me i would want all important points summarised as well ... and the time line for the history part is a must but since there is soooo much info for the history .. we gotta select out the most important once i guess.. !!! Ok here we go ...History of ultrasound...<br /> <br /> In order to know how ultrasound works we first need to understand how sound waves work..i found not an article but a full website based on how it was developed .. errm .. it gives us an &quot;IN DEPT&quot; detail from 1826 .. Like i think we really select the information ... <br /> <br /> 1974= As for high frequency 'ultrasound', Lazzaro Spallanzani, an Italian biologist, could be credited for it's discovery <br /> <br /> 1826 = Jean-Daniel Colladon, a Swiss physicist, had successfully used an underwater bell to determine the speed of sound in the waters<br /> <br /> 1880 = The real breakthrough in the evolution of high frequency echo-sounding techniques was discovered by Pierre Curie and his brother Jacques Curie<br /> <br /> 1914 = The first working sonar system was designed and built in the United States by Canadian Reginald Fessenden <br /> <br /> (this is just an example of the first couple of paragraph ...!! lol ) <br /> <br /> <br /> [http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/ultrasonics_history.html History summaried]<br /> <br /> <br /> [http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/history1.html Full History] --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 11:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> No worries! :) <br /> <br /> What you've outlined sounds fantastic to me (and kudos for being so organised). Awesome! Honestly, I think our main problem is just going to be keeping it concise, since we need to keep a focus on diagnosing abnormalities too. Do you think a table would be a good way to present it? Just 'cause this is supposed to be aimed at our peers, and I know heaps of text makes me zone out but tables seem to make information easier to digest. Just a thought...<br /> <br /> And - also just a thought - maybe we could do a timeline diagram of the history, too, to make it easier to read? It's also another way we can make our own diagram, which means we don't have to tackle all those copyright issues and we fulfill assessment criteria. I'm trying to put the &quot;How it works&quot; into a table or a flowchart, though I'm still researching it as well. <br /> <br /> Is everyone doing alright with their bits so far? :) --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 23:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Oops, well I was just following Nany :P<br /> <br /> So ultrasounds are done differently at different stages of the pregnancy, in the first, second and third trimester and they can also be used in the delivery process. Therefore I think the use and techniques of ultrasound would be best divided up into those 4 categories;<br /> <br /> 1. First Trimester<br /> <br /> Ultrasounds preformed vaginally<br /> <br /> 2. Second Trimester<br /> <br /> Ultrasounds preformed on maternal abdomen<br /> <br /> 3. Third Trimester<br /> <br /> Also preformed on mummy’s tummy<br /> <br /> 4. Delivery<br /> <br /> To guide the inducing of a foetus or to determine if a caesarean is necessary<br /> <br /> [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20173318 Ultrasound in Labour and Delivery]<br /> <br /> <br /> The routine ultrasound done for most women at 18-20 weeks generally looks for the following things;<br /> <br /> • Foetal growth<br /> <br /> • Foetal age/Delivery date<br /> <br /> • Heartbeat<br /> <br /> • Placental positioning<br /> <br /> • Identify possible congenital abnormalities<br /> <br /> • Detect ectopic pregnancies<br /> <br /> • Check for multiple pregnancy<br /> <br /> • Determine sex (just out of interest to parents, not medically necessary)<br /> <br /> <br /> The below articles looks at some of the above characteristics and how they are used;<br /> <br /> [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11930060 US evaluation of foetal growth: prediction of neonatal outcomes.]<br /> <br /> [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18538160 First- vs second-trimester ultrasound: the effect on pregnancy dating and perinatal outcomes.]<br /> <br /> [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11331644 Transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervical length changes during triplet gestation.]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Also used to guide other diagnostic procedures such as chronic villus sampling and amniocentesis.<br /> <br /> That’s mostly normal uses at the moment, will look at their use in diagnosis of abnormalities later<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3288088|z3288088]] 01:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey again guys! (I think we're supposed to post at the top of the page instead of the bottom, so that's what I'm doing, if you're wondering.) So in terms of links to search Pubmed I made these last week on my student page so I'll paste them here. And I also have the Wiki code here for making the reference list and referencing Pubmed articles, for future reference.<br /> <br /> Search Bookshelf: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Ultrasound Ultrasound]<br /> <br /> Search Pubmed: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Ultrasound Ultrasound]<br /> <br /> Ultrasound and the risk of nosocomial cross infection &lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;20681005&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Reference'''<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 01:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hi group! So we should probably decide how much of the incredible amount of information on ultrasounds we're going to cover. I'm going to suggest - and feel free to disagree/agree/comment/whatever - that we do a least a bit on the sicence of how ultrasounds actually work before going into how you can use them to diagnose conditions prenatally. We're supposed to have at least one student-drawn diagram on our page and I figure we could have a diagram explaining how an ultrasound works, which would cover that objective. If you guys think it's an okay idea, I'd like to offer to cover this point - I love finding out how things work. <br /> <br /> Also, if you have the time, could we just quickly email each other (even just a blank email) so we know the addresses work and no-one has a wrong spelling or anything? And whilst you guys have my email, I failed to be organised and don't have yours, so if it's not too much trouble to drop me a line... Thanks! :) --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 01:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10MHtalk}}<br /> <br /> <br /> hey there ... ermm i totally think the knowing how it works before jumping to prenatal diagnosis would be a great idea...and I am totally cool if you want the hand drawn image to be on how ultrasound works ... but wont that be complicated ? isnt drawing prenatal ultrasound be easier (like a pregnant women and the machine on her stomach) - if that made anysense lol .. and yes i would send u both email immidiatly ... (nany) :) --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 09:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The science idea sounds good, and I agree with Sam it would be a good one for a diagram. I also think a historical overview of the development and use of ultrasound might be good. Then what its used for in terms of diagnosis (obviously necessary) and perhaps also a section on the risks, though they are few they do exist and there are reports/studies on them. I think this would be interesting... Anyway I will see you in 20minutes-ish so we can discuss it. --[[User:Z3288088|z3288088]] 22:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> PS. forgot to email you, will do soon :)</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Group_Project_1&diff=37763 2010-09-22T13:56:06Z

<p>Z3293029: </p> <hr /> <div>==Peer review==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Group 1:<br /> Your project is put together very well in terms of its structure and layout, making it easy to keep up with the expanse of information you have provided. The detail and depth you've gone into is very impressive especially in the &quot;how it works&quot; and &quot;current uses&quot; sections. The use of tables is especially effective in these sections because i feel it presents the content in a clear and concise way making it easier for the reader to understand and make comparisons. I also found the links to be a useful addition.<br /> One thing you could add to improve your page is to maybe elaborate on the limitations of ultrasounds in terms of accuracy in immediate diagnosis or a comparison with other diagnostic techniques. Otherwise, the page is very well thought out and i definitely felt like i gathered a thorough overview from it.<br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 13:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Group 1- well done overall on your page, I learned a lot from this page alone. The table comparing the different types of transducers and scans, and use of images made the page both engaging and aesthetically appealing. Placing links for further information under each section is something that would probably be useful for all groups on their pages. So well done on that. Your use of tables was very helpful allowing the reader to grasp a conceptual understanding. The abnormalities section is very interesting and highlights the importance of this procedure in prenatal diagnosis. Judging by your references, and detail there has been some extensive research which is great. <br /> Something that could be improved would be the How It Works section where the content suddenly becomes quite technically dense. I would suggest simplifying it a little and maybe tailoring the jargon to your audience a little more. That is, someone who knows very little about Ultrasound and it's technicalities. Also, some images under the Abnormalities section would also be helpful --Felicia Ton 13:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> '''GROUP 1: Ultrasound''' <br /> <br /> The fact that the layout and format of the web page is well formatted makes it easy to follow. It has a really good flow. The tables in the section, especially the table describing the different transducer types made it extremely easy to understand and also the picture sort of make you want to read what the pictures are about. The images that you have on your webpage are really well explained yet as a criticism you could have more pictures for example pictures of the disorders that ultrasounds detect. The page has an extremely scientific feel so you don’t have to change anything there. There are some spelling mistakes like the people above have stated but that shouldn’t be a big problem as you will probably find these in your final check. I really found informative but is sort of thought that maybe if somebody without a background in science would struggle certain parts. Putting it under different sub headings also made this extremely easy to follow as well but all in all I really liked the page. Nice Work!!!<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3252635|z3252635]] 13:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Ultrasound.<br /> <br /> You guys have a very informative page, nicely organised and easy to follow. I found the Tables were very neat and eye catching and not cluttered. The technical aspects of ultrasound were covered really well, as well as the images accompanying them. Images were described in depth alongside the thumbnail.. however it wasn't too clear if there was a student drawn image on the page. Abnormalities were covered really well also, the information was easy to understand yet still being scientific in the language. I also liked how there were useful links throughout the page that relate to their topic. Things that could be improved would be on the Current Research heading, could be longer. References were good, with a nice glossary. overall, very nice :D<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3224500|z3224500]] 12:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Group 1, your project is very detailed and there seems to be lots of research gone into it, also evident by your reference list. Your procedure section is very detailed and scientific, it maybe could be broken into more point form to make it easier to read. Your detail in abnormalities shows extensive research, the ultrasound specific heart defects is particularly interesting as it is a unique set of disorders that can be detected compared to the other techniques. Your current research is really interesting as well and easier to understand than some of the other projects. Overall, great job.<br /> <br /> What could be improved: More detail in the history section, the time line gives a good overview but maybe some more detail on the key scientists and research leading to the procedure, besides a link to another page. Maybe some more pictures other than the ultrasound ones, like of disorders, or of the actual ultrasound machines would be good to break up the page. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3292208|z3292208]] 09:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> The format of this page is excellent, there is a good balance of figures, tables and text. The clear and concise language consistent throughout makes the page accessible for anyone reading. <br /> <br /> The project is great, maybe throw in a graph somewhere? It's a good visual tool that I think would compliment the information you have effectively. This is more of a suggestion than a critique, nice work.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254753|z3254753]] 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> GROUP PROJECT 1: ultrasound <br /> <br /> Firstly I thought group 1s layout was great and very well organised, I particularly appreciated the external link that were quite interesting and informative. Also the relevant images on the web page helped in my understanding of the topic. I do think that I have learnt something about ultrasonography especially about the history and the science behind the equipment and techniques used. The only thing that I was left wanting to know was the accuracy of the ultrasound for each test. <br /> <br /> What would improve this project? nothing really, good job guys.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3254433|z3254433]] 07:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hi Guys!!<br /> <br /> Love the page, the layout is really easy to follow, everything seems to be in the right order and flow really well. i could easily follow what you have written. i really like the table on the types of transducers, i actually had no idea there were different kinds! One thing i found especially impressive, was that you have taken the time to explain every image when you click on it. this would've taken a lot of time and effort that isn't immediately available to see, but helpful if you need to know more about the image, you just click on it. <br /> <br /> What could be improved: in one of the tables, under the heading minor signs of trisomies, pleuxs should be plexus. i didnt see any other spelling mistakes though. Also, it seems only one person has contributed most of the work? do you have three in your group? i found this to be the case for most pages. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3265772|z3265772]] 23:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> I thought this project was very well done, and was easy to understand. The headings helped. I especially like the table describing the different sorts of transducers, the pictures made it easier to know what you were talking about. It was overall very informative as i learnt about how many different ways you can identify the embryo and how many defects can be detected. <br /> <br /> What could be improved is perhaps a picture or two showing a defect, just to break up the amount of information presented. But otherwise this project was very good. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3291079|z3291079]] 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The website has a very clear structure making it easy to read. The contents are adequate for providing a basic overview of ultrasound to the general public. There is a good balance of text and pictures providing examples of various types of ultrasound images. I think it is a great idea to tables to present the different types of transducers used in ultrasound as it makes it very easy to spot and compare the different. From an academic point of view I find the website very educational, however from a practical point of view the site did not mention any cost or preparation required for the test. <br /> <br /> What I think could be improve is adding a summary of the benefits of ultrasound and a table of when, over the course of pregnancy, should ultrasound be used with respect to its uses for prenatal diagnoses. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3216889|3216889]] 11:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> This web page is very well set out. The information is clear and the subheadings are indicative of the historical development and the use of the ultrasound. I like the table format for the different types of ultrasounds as it provided a break from the text which in some parts seemed slightly superfluous. Overall this is an excellent webpage; it's educational value is high, it makes excellent use of external pages and it has an extensive glossary page which was greatly appreciated. Good job guys!!--[[User:Z3252083|Mary Nicolas]] 12:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Group 1 Ultrasound<br /> The topic throughout the webpage was very clearly described, mainly due to the organisation of headings and sub-0headings. The reader will definitely have a clear understanding of ultrasound after looking at this page as the topic was explored very broadly. Also helping understand the content was a great use of tables, pictures and diagrams which gave me an understanding of the concept that text couldn’t alone e.g diagram of different transducers. However the text in some cases (transducers) was too bulky and may need to be broken up into points or more paragraphs or more sub-headings. Well done people the page looks really good.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3290040|3290040]] 10:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> sam .. so how's it .. now i am verrrrrrrrry worried .. ??? please reply la .. is everything ok ? or ?? thanks .. anyways la .. am goin to bed ... if u want anything just call la .. :) .. cya tomz .. bye --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 16:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Omg .. i just saw .. as soon as i click done .. i saw this .. omg i am so sorry .. u had to do them all alone .. i feel super bad la .. and is my part to less ?? u want me to do anything else?? and urs look so lovely with tables and all lol :)--[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> No worries. I'll do a quick grammar check, but it all looks fine. I've worked with what I have to put together the bulk of what Alix was supposed to be doing. I hope it's okay. --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 16:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> sorry la .. i think its ok now .. i tried .. i was like .. so stressed when no button seemed to work .. but luckily everything is fine now and yes .. thats the best i can do la .. as usual .. please feel free to change to add or do anything la .. thank u so much .. will cya tomz. :) --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey sam .. I edited everything but i don't know why i could not save .. everytime i press save the error message pops up .. i did put in the PUBMED Id and edited the reference but it just keep showing me the error message even after the log off and log in again .. I cant understand it .. can i send the pubmed id to your email ?? i already edited everything ... omg .. I will send the whole section to your email . .can you please try to copy and paste it tomorrow morning ?? thank u .. :) --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 14:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey i am gonna put a very non-finished version for u to see first so that u feel better lol .. i am doing the refs .. the everything now .. but just for you to see where this is goin .. i will put it up now .. and if the content is too less .. please tell me now lol ..but i think thats pretty much how much i can come up with .. i will try to do the history more tonight .. :) !! cya --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 13:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hi! Oh good, I'm sorry. I was just panicking a little. For an example about the history, look here: [http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/cellbiology/index.php?title=Group_5_Project_-_Electron_Microsopy link]. This is pretty intense, but it shows both what happened that year and why it's relevant. It also shows the referencing and how to code it. I know it's going to be hard; again, I've got family in hospital and assignments and exams too, but we have no choice here. We have to find time. Anyway, talk tomorrow. --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 13:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey there ... of course i am doing the current research thing la .. i am just a little worried about the ref lol .. and thank u for fixing everything up .. its much readable now .. i know that the history needs to be related to ultrasound but then it wouldnt be a time line ... But yeah we have to do alix part ?? now thats gonna be very difficult because i have 2 assignments coming up omg .. i am getting very worried !! anywayz i wil ltalk to you tomorrow as well and i think i will be done in about an hour or so but yes .. if u need anything just call me la .. thanks .. bye --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 13:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey Nany. I'm going to just go and fix a few grammar things in your intro and timeline, if that's okay. Other than that, good... though wee need to explain why those historical points are relevant for ultrasound. I'll talk to you tomorrow, at any rate. Also, I finally managed to get through to Alix and she apparently has dropped the course, so we have to do her bit too. It's horribly late notice, I know, but we have to make the best of it. I'll see what I can do before tomorrow, but it's going to be hard. I looked at the page and you haven't put anything up but the history yet. I really, really hope you are doing the current research bit right now because I know we're both busy but I've managed to do an awful lot for my part, and with Alix gone we don't have much, and this is not a good standard. Sorry to sound so grim, but we're not in a good place. I'm counting on you. See you tomorrow. --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 12:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey sam .. I have already added a little intro ... and Its not an actual publication or an article its from a website .. so how do i reference that ?? and the website is [http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/history1.html History] this one .. errm ?? sorry la .. :)--[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 11:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> As I mentioned today, the timeline is great. I think an intro to it/overview would also be great, and references should be added in ASAP. Alix, we still haven't heard from you... are you okay? I'm a little concerned now. Are you still doing the course? Please, get back to me when you can! --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 07:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey guys ,.. i have uploaded the time line a couple of days back .. i dont know if its ok or not la .. so if u think something is wrong please tell me or feel free to change or edit anything la .. :) thank u ... --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 07:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC) nany<br /> <br /> Hey guys! So I've gotten permission to use some ultrasound images and have uploaded them to the site. I'm still arguing with the scanner, but I will definitely have those drawn diagrams up by Sunday afternoon, even if I have to take photos of them and upload them that way (it would be sooner, but with my Grandmother in hospital and work I have some time issues). I have four images left to upload: a drawing of an ultrasound scan line, and the three transducers and ultrasound scan patterns. I'm glad you liked the table Nany, I hoped it would make things simple. How are you going with your timeline?<br /> <br /> Alix, are you okay? We haven't heard from you in a while, and this is due for peer assessment on Thursday. I know we agreed that due to time constrictions on all our parts we would do the majority of out putting-information-up this week - are you going okay with your part?--[[User:Z3252833|Samantha Guinn]] 09:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey there ...Sam i read through ur part and loved the table .. made things clear but i didnt get a chance to read through all the details yet and dont worry about my part it will be up very soon .. Tomorrow morning is my flight so the next time i can come online is friday morning (when i reach sydney) and i hope everything will be up by friday night if i am not too jetlagged lol .. anywayz .. I just wanted to update la .. :) --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 18:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Nany<br /> <br /> <br /> Hi again! Hope you're all having a lovely break. I've put up a revised version of my section, and added some extra stuff. I've drawn the diagrams we need freehand since I find it easier than digitally, and am in the process of scanning them. They'll be up soon. Also, I'm in negotiations over some images for us to use. If you guys could have a read through of it and let me know what you think, that'd be awesome. Thanks! --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 01:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey guys..I read your part sam and i loved the glossary ...and u mentioned u sent emails .. I didnt get any la .. I am sorry but is it to Nany_van@hotmail.com because i really did not get anything..and yes for my part i will put it up soon may be this weekend (is that too late??? lol) and what did i miss from today's lab ? did mark mention anything about the gorup work ? are we goin ok ? thanks guy cya soon nany --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 01:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey guys! I've put up part of my draft so that we have something up on the page. I know it's heavy on text but hopefully I'm going to cut that down a little, when I put the diagrams up and it becomes clearer. I'm in the process of making some diagrams for the kinds of scans, and I've emailed some people about ultrasound pictures, but they've not gotten back to me yet (so all those '(DIAGRAM)' bits will be replaced with actual pictures soon!). Worst comes to worst and I can't find a source of good ultrasound pictures in the public domain other than Wiki Commons, I'll draw more diagrams myself. Also, I haven't put up my stuff about Doppler or 3D ultrasound or the comparison of the types yet; they're coming - I have the info, I'm just trying to make it as clear and concise as possible. In other words, I'm getting there. I'll sort out the references soon too; I have another paper or two of interest but I'm having trouble downloading the whole things rather than just the abstracts. It's a computer thing and I'll sort it out soon. Also, I've shoved some terms into the glossary - tell me if they make sense. Hope you're going well! --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 23:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dear mark .. I have already sent you an email regarding my leave on the next lab.. And as i've previously mentioned to my team mates i will still contribute to the group work but i just wanted to inform them that the reply might not be as instant as when i am here because of time differences and clashes on schedule ..--[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 11:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 00:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Z3305561 You should contact me if you will be absent from laboratories. Also there is no reason that you cannot still contribute to group work as long as you have internet access. It is important that you complete your contributions before the peer assessment in the first week after the mid-semester break.<br /> <br /> ===Importantly there is currently no content on your project page.===<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey guys i have to tell u something .. i will not be here for the next lab because i have to fly back to thailand for some issue thing .. Actually my flight was initially booked on thursday but now i have to go on wednesday so i wont be here for this week's lab .. I am soooo suppper sorry but of course we can still chat and talk and u know exchange infromation .. and u will definetly hear from me even when i am in thailand .. I have internet la lol .. my email is nany_van@hotmail.com so i think that might be a faster way to contact me .. I have already started on my part and will put the content asap .. (may be a couple of days..) and u guys can change or do what ever u guys want la .. I know it would be a little harder since i am in thailand to have instant reply but feel free to add , delete anything la .. and yes I will say this again .. I am deeply sorry i will have to miss the lab but if theres anything i can do pleasssssse let me know la and if i am behind in the project please let me know too la !!! ... cya guys soon :) !! well that is after the midsem <br /> <br /> p.s. anyone wants anything from thailand ?? lol !!! nany---[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 09:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey alix ... get well soon la .. and don't worry about the lab ..!!! I am trying to search the &quot;relevant resources&quot; too .. like .. I was up the whole week and couldnt do much .. sorry about that guys .. anyways .. cya soon :) nany---[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 23:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> I hope you feel better soon! I've been searching for public domain images; I'm finding them hard to come by. Here, however, is a link to a number of public domain images available on Wikipedia commons; they're not stunning but may be helpful: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&amp;search=ultrasound Potential ultrasound public domain images] And here is another site I've found to be useful in explaining the basics of ultrasound : [http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/ Obstetric Ultrasound: A comprehensive guide]--[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 23:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hi, I am also sorry but I am sorry because Im not going to be there this morning as I'm not too well. However if you need me I will be next to my computer for the duration of the lab and can be contacted via this discussion board. Sorry again.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3288088|z3288088]] 21:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hey guys .. I am sorry i haven't done much either .. and i am so sorry to hear that ur grandmother fell down .. Don't worry about it and i think our first deadline is due not next week but after the midsemester break ...!!! and i am gathering information for my part too .. its not structured yet .. will do it during this weekend too .. :) nany--[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 11:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hi guys. I'm sorry I haven't written anything on the page this week. I had planned to have a draft yesterday, after my anatomy exam was done, but my grandmother had a fall yesterday afternoon and is now in hospital and can barely walk, so I'm afraid I didn't get to putting up my draft, and probably won't have anything up until the weekend. I know our first deadline is next week; I definitely have time on the weekend to get things done, and will have my draft up ASAP. Sorry, again! I'm doing what I can right now. I am designing a drawing for our page to explain the workings of ultrasound; it will be up be next week too. Also, in regards to Mark Hill's comment that we have no reference material, I have previously stated that I am currently using old-school information - hard copies of books - as reference, and they can't be linked to on this page (though I did give a link to on of the books I'm using). I'll tell you guys what I know when I see you, and you'll see the information when I have the draft up, but unitl then, there's not much I can do. See you tomorrow!--[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 10:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC) <br /> <br /> <br /> --[[User:S8600021|Mark Hill]] 04:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I cannot see any reference material here, other than the infection ref, or related images.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> So as discussed<br /> We are each working on the following;<br /> <br /> Nany;<br /> <br /> • History<br /> <br /> • Current Research and Future Directions<br /> <br /> Samantha;<br /> <br /> • Science<br /> <br /> • Risks and Regulations<br /> <br /> Alix;<br /> <br /> • Uses<br /> <br /> • Advantages vs. Disadvantages<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3288088|z3288088]] 00:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hello again! No problems, Nany. Nice start with the history; I think it's going to be easier to talk tomorrow than to write it here. It's hard to show what I've got since at the moment I'm mostly using a completely non-digital (and thus non-linkable) resource; a book called Diagnostic Ultrasound: Principles and Intstruments. Thihttp://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Group_Project_1&amp;action=edits is it, but you can't preview it online:<br /> <br /> [http://books.google.com.au/books?id=kK2PQgAACAAJ&amp;dq=diagnostic+ultrasound+principles+and+instruments&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=htBrTMaNFNO6ce6t8Fo&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA]<br /> <br /> Also, this site by Discovery Health gives a simple overview of the workings of Ultrasound: [http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/tests-treatment/ultrasound2.htm Discovery Health Ultrasound]<br /> <br /> See you tomorrow!--[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 12:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hey guys...sorry for the last minute thing la ... its been a really hectic week and yes i do totally agree with the &quot;table&quot; idea since if it was me i would want all important points summarised as well ... and the time line for the history part is a must but since there is soooo much info for the history .. we gotta select out the most important once i guess.. !!! Ok here we go ...History of ultrasound...<br /> <br /> In order to know how ultrasound works we first need to understand how sound waves work..i found not an article but a full website based on how it was developed .. errm .. it gives us an &quot;IN DEPT&quot; detail from 1826 .. Like i think we really select the information ... <br /> <br /> 1974= As for high frequency 'ultrasound', Lazzaro Spallanzani, an Italian biologist, could be credited for it's discovery <br /> <br /> 1826 = Jean-Daniel Colladon, a Swiss physicist, had successfully used an underwater bell to determine the speed of sound in the waters<br /> <br /> 1880 = The real breakthrough in the evolution of high frequency echo-sounding techniques was discovered by Pierre Curie and his brother Jacques Curie<br /> <br /> 1914 = The first working sonar system was designed and built in the United States by Canadian Reginald Fessenden <br /> <br /> (this is just an example of the first couple of paragraph ...!! lol ) <br /> <br /> <br /> [http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/ultrasonics_history.html History summaried]<br /> <br /> <br /> [http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/history1.html Full History] --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 11:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> No worries! :) <br /> <br /> What you've outlined sounds fantastic to me (and kudos for being so organised). Awesome! Honestly, I think our main problem is just going to be keeping it concise, since we need to keep a focus on diagnosing abnormalities too. Do you think a table would be a good way to present it? Just 'cause this is supposed to be aimed at our peers, and I know heaps of text makes me zone out but tables seem to make information easier to digest. Just a thought...<br /> <br /> And - also just a thought - maybe we could do a timeline diagram of the history, too, to make it easier to read? It's also another way we can make our own diagram, which means we don't have to tackle all those copyright issues and we fulfill assessment criteria. I'm trying to put the &quot;How it works&quot; into a table or a flowchart, though I'm still researching it as well. <br /> <br /> Is everyone doing alright with their bits so far? :) --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 23:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Oops, well I was just following Nany :P<br /> <br /> So ultrasounds are done differently at different stages of the pregnancy, in the first, second and third trimester and they can also be used in the delivery process. Therefore I think the use and techniques of ultrasound would be best divided up into those 4 categories;<br /> <br /> 1. First Trimester<br /> <br /> Ultrasounds preformed vaginally<br /> <br /> 2. Second Trimester<br /> <br /> Ultrasounds preformed on maternal abdomen<br /> <br /> 3. Third Trimester<br /> <br /> Also preformed on mummy’s tummy<br /> <br /> 4. Delivery<br /> <br /> To guide the inducing of a foetus or to determine if a caesarean is necessary<br /> <br /> [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20173318 Ultrasound in Labour and Delivery]<br /> <br /> <br /> The routine ultrasound done for most women at 18-20 weeks generally looks for the following things;<br /> <br /> • Foetal growth<br /> <br /> • Foetal age/Delivery date<br /> <br /> • Heartbeat<br /> <br /> • Placental positioning<br /> <br /> • Identify possible congenital abnormalities<br /> <br /> • Detect ectopic pregnancies<br /> <br /> • Check for multiple pregnancy<br /> <br /> • Determine sex (just out of interest to parents, not medically necessary)<br /> <br /> <br /> The below articles looks at some of the above characteristics and how they are used;<br /> <br /> [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11930060 US evaluation of foetal growth: prediction of neonatal outcomes.]<br /> <br /> [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18538160 First- vs second-trimester ultrasound: the effect on pregnancy dating and perinatal outcomes.]<br /> <br /> [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11331644 Transvaginal sonographic assessment of cervical length changes during triplet gestation.]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Also used to guide other diagnostic procedures such as chronic villus sampling and amniocentesis.<br /> <br /> That’s mostly normal uses at the moment, will look at their use in diagnosis of abnormalities later<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3288088|z3288088]] 01:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey again guys! (I think we're supposed to post at the top of the page instead of the bottom, so that's what I'm doing, if you're wondering.) So in terms of links to search Pubmed I made these last week on my student page so I'll paste them here. And I also have the Wiki code here for making the reference list and referencing Pubmed articles, for future reference.<br /> <br /> Search Bookshelf: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Ultrasound Ultrasound]<br /> <br /> Search Pubmed: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Ultrasound Ultrasound]<br /> <br /> Ultrasound and the risk of nosocomial cross infection &lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;20681005&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Reference'''<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 01:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Hi group! So we should probably decide how much of the incredible amount of information on ultrasounds we're going to cover. I'm going to suggest - and feel free to disagree/agree/comment/whatever - that we do a least a bit on the sicence of how ultrasounds actually work before going into how you can use them to diagnose conditions prenatally. We're supposed to have at least one student-drawn diagram on our page and I figure we could have a diagram explaining how an ultrasound works, which would cover that objective. If you guys think it's an okay idea, I'd like to offer to cover this point - I love finding out how things work. <br /> <br /> Also, if you have the time, could we just quickly email each other (even just a blank email) so we know the addresses work and no-one has a wrong spelling or anything? And whilst you guys have my email, I failed to be organised and don't have yours, so if it's not too much trouble to drop me a line... Thanks! :) --[[User:Z3252833|z3252833]] 01:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10MHtalk}}<br /> <br /> <br /> hey there ... ermm i totally think the knowing how it works before jumping to prenatal diagnosis would be a great idea...and I am totally cool if you want the hand drawn image to be on how ultrasound works ... but wont that be complicated ? isnt drawing prenatal ultrasound be easier (like a pregnant women and the machine on her stomach) - if that made anysense lol .. and yes i would send u both email immidiatly ... (nany) :) --[[User:Z3305561|Navneet Ahuja]] 09:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The science idea sounds good, and I agree with Sam it would be a good one for a diagram. I also think a historical overview of the development and use of ultrasound might be good. Then what its used for in terms of diagnosis (obviously necessary) and perhaps also a section on the risks, though they are few they do exist and there are reports/studies on them. I think this would be interesting... Anyway I will see you in 20minutes-ish so we can discuss it. --[[User:Z3288088|z3288088]] 22:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> PS. forgot to email you, will do soon :)</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=User:Z3293029&diff=36929 2010-09-16T00:55:55Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Attendance */</p> <hr /> <div>==Attendance==<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|z3293029]] 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> --[[User:Z3293029|Shereen Sidhu]] 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==lab1==<br /> internal link: [[2010_Lecture_2|cell division]]<br /> <br /> external link: [http://www.smh.com.au/ SMH]<br /> <br /> link: [[fertilization|fertilization topic on main page]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 2==<br /> Q1) The syncitiotrophoblast cells secrete Human Chorionic Gonadotropin hormone (hCG) to maintain the decidua and corpus luteum, which in turn secrete other factors, including progesterone, that support pregnancy.<br /> <br /> Q2) The corpus luteum secretes progesterone to maintain the endometrium.<br /> <br /> ==picture==<br /> [[File:Early_zygote.jpg|right]]<br /> <br /> ==lab 3==<br /> <br /> <br /> ==lab 4==<br /> <br /> Q1) viteline vein, umbilical vein, common cardinal vein<br /> <br /> Q2) viteline arteries contribute to adult GIT arteries. They fuse to become the superior mesenteric artery in the midgut.<br /> viteline veins empty into sinus venosus. They contribute to the adult portal system.<br /> <br /> Q3) syncitiotrophoblast, cytotrophoblast, villi connective tissue, foetal capillary endothelium<br /> <br /> Q4) placenta blood is a source for stem cells</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36435 2010-09-12T15:35:58Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (E.g. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> &lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;18292841&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;8907774&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chorionic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chorionic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 18-23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and intrauterine infections. unable to detect neural tube defects. || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies. least accurate in cytogenic analysis. || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |-<br /> | time taken for samples to be cultured || align=left | 72 hours || 9-10 days || 10-11 days<br /> |}<br /> &lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;18292841&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;20193481&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Advantages of PUBS:''<br /> <br /> - accurate at detecting the presence of genetic disorders<br /> <br /> - sample is available for many different types of analysis, which allows for the detection of a wide range of defects<br /> <br /> - results are available relatively soon after procedure has taken place<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Disadvantages of PUBS:'' <br /> <br /> -unable to accurately detect the severity of disorders<br /> <br /> - takes place only later in pregnancy<br /> <br /> - recognised as posing potential risks<br /> <br /> -unable to detect neural tube defects<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel <br /> &lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;8739583&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36434 2010-09-12T15:31:44Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (E.g. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> &lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;18292841&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;8907774&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chorionic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chorionic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 18-23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and intrauterine infections. unable to detect neural tube defects. || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies. least accurate in cytogenic analysis. || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |-<br /> | time taken for samples to be cultured || align=left | 72 hours || 9-10 days || 10-11 days<br /> |}<br /> &lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;18292841&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ''Advantages of PUBS:''<br /> <br /> - accurate at detecting the presence of genetic disorders<br /> <br /> - sample is available for many different types of analysis, which allows for the detection of a wide range of defects<br /> <br /> - results are available relatively soon after procedure has taken place<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Disadvantages of PUBS:'' <br /> <br /> -unable to accurately detect the severity of disorders<br /> <br /> - takes place only later in pregnancy<br /> <br /> - recognised as posing potential risks<br /> <br /> -unable to detect neural tube defects<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel <br /> &lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;8739583&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36430 2010-09-12T15:29:01Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (E.g. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> &lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;18292841&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;8907774&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chorionic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chorionic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 18-23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and intrauterine infections. unable to detect neural tube defects. || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies. least accurate in cytogenic analysis. || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |-<br /> | time taken for samples to be cultured || align=left | 72 hours || 9-10 days || 10-11 days<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Advantages of PUBS:''<br /> <br /> - accurate at detecting the presence of genetic disorders<br /> <br /> - sample is available for many different types of analysis, which allows for the detection of a wide range of defects<br /> <br /> - results are available relatively soon after procedure has taken place<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Disadvantages of PUBS:'' <br /> <br /> -unable to accurately detect the severity of disorders<br /> <br /> - takes place only later in pregnancy<br /> <br /> - recognised as posing potential risks<br /> <br /> -unable to detect neural tube defects<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36429 2010-09-12T15:26:04Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (E.g. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> &lt;ref&gt;&lt;pubmed&gt;18292841&lt;/pubmed&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chorionic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chorionic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 18-23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and intrauterine infections. unable to detect neural tube defects. || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies. least accurate in cytogenic analysis. || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |-<br /> | time taken for samples to be cultured || align=left | 72 hours || 9-10 days || 10-11 days<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Advantages of PUBS:''<br /> <br /> - accurate at detecting the presence of genetic disorders<br /> <br /> - sample is available for many different types of analysis, which allows for the detection of a wide range of defects<br /> <br /> - results are available relatively soon after procedure has taken place<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Disadvantages of PUBS:'' <br /> <br /> -unable to accurately detect the severity of disorders<br /> <br /> - takes place only later in pregnancy<br /> <br /> - recognised as posing potential risks<br /> <br /> -unable to detect neural tube defects<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36428 2010-09-12T15:21:31Z

<p>Z3293029: /* References */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (E.g. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chorionic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chorionic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 18-23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and intrauterine infections. unable to detect neural tube defects. || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies. least accurate in cytogenic analysis. || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |-<br /> | time taken for samples to be cultured || align=left | 72 hours || 9-10 days || 10-11 days<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Advantages of PUBS:''<br /> <br /> - accurate at detecting the presence of genetic disorders<br /> <br /> - sample is available for many different types of analysis, which allows for the detection of a wide range of defects<br /> <br /> - results are available relatively soon after procedure has taken place<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Disadvantages of PUBS:'' <br /> <br /> -unable to accurately detect the severity of disorders<br /> <br /> - takes place only later in pregnancy<br /> <br /> - recognised as posing potential risks<br /> <br /> -unable to detect neural tube defects<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36427 2010-09-12T15:21:21Z

<p>Z3293029: /* References */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (E.g. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chorionic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chorionic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 18-23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and intrauterine infections. unable to detect neural tube defects. || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies. least accurate in cytogenic analysis. || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |-<br /> | time taken for samples to be cultured || align=left | 72 hours || 9-10 days || 10-11 days<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Advantages of PUBS:''<br /> <br /> - accurate at detecting the presence of genetic disorders<br /> <br /> - sample is available for many different types of analysis, which allows for the detection of a wide range of defects<br /> <br /> - results are available relatively soon after procedure has taken place<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Disadvantages of PUBS:'' <br /> <br /> -unable to accurately detect the severity of disorders<br /> <br /> - takes place only later in pregnancy<br /> <br /> - recognised as posing potential risks<br /> <br /> -unable to detect neural tube defects<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> PMID: 18292841<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36425 2010-09-12T15:12:46Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (E.g. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chorionic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chorionic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 18-23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and intrauterine infections. unable to detect neural tube defects. || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies. least accurate in cytogenic analysis. || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |-<br /> | time taken for samples to be cultured || align=left | 72 hours || 9-10 days || 10-11 days<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Advantages of PUBS:''<br /> <br /> - accurate at detecting the presence of genetic disorders<br /> <br /> - sample is available for many different types of analysis, which allows for the detection of a wide range of defects<br /> <br /> - results are available relatively soon after procedure has taken place<br /> <br /> <br /> ''Disadvantages of PUBS:'' <br /> <br /> -unable to accurately detect the severity of disorders<br /> <br /> - takes place only later in pregnancy<br /> <br /> - recognised as posing potential risks<br /> <br /> -unable to detect neural tube defects<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36424 2010-09-12T15:11:59Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (E.g. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chorionic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chorionic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 18-23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and intrauterine infections. unable to detect neural tube defects. || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies. least accurate in cytogenic analysis. || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |-<br /> | time taken for samples to be cultured || align=left | 72 hours || 9-10 days || 10-11 days<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> Advantages of PUBS:<br /> <br /> - accurate at detecting the presence of genetic disorders<br /> <br /> - sample is available for many different types of analysis, which allows for the detection of a wide range of defects<br /> <br /> - results are available relatively soon after procedure has taken place<br /> <br /> <br /> Disadvantages of PUBS: <br /> <br /> -unable to accurately detect the severity of disorders<br /> <br /> - takes place only later in pregnancy<br /> <br /> - recognised as posing potential risks<br /> <br /> -unable to detect neural tube defects<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36422 2010-09-12T14:22:51Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (Eg. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chronic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chronic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 18-23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and intrauterine infections. unable to detect neural tube defects. || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies. least accurate in cytogenic analysis. || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |-<br /> | time taken for samples to be cultured || align=left | 72 hours || 9-10 days || 10-11 days<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36420 2010-09-12T14:15:40Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (Eg. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chronic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chronic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 18-23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and intrauterine infections. a drawback for PUBS is that it is unable to detect neural tube defects. || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies. A major disadvantage for CVS is that it is the least accurate in cytogenic analysis. || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |-<br /> | time taken for samples to be cultured || align=left | 72 hours || 9-10 days || 10-11 days<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36308 2010-09-12T03:18:00Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (Eg. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chronic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chronic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 18-23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and intrauterine infections || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |-<br /> | time taken for samples to be cultured || align=left | 72 hours || 9-10 days || 10-11 days<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36307 2010-09-12T03:16:04Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (Eg. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chronic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chronic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and intrauterine infections || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |-<br /> | time taken for samples to be cultured || align=left | 72 hours || 9-10 days || 10-11 days<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36298 2010-09-12T02:51:52Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (Eg. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chronic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chronic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and intrauterine infections || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36295 2010-09-12T02:41:38Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (Eg. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chronic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chronic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=left | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=left | 23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=left | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and inauterine infections || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36294 2010-09-12T02:41:06Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (Eg. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chronic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chronic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=right | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=right | 23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=right | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and inauterine infections || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36293 2010-09-12T02:40:32Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (Eg. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chronic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chronic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=right | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing | align=right || 23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=right | karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and inauterine infections || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36292 2010-09-12T02:39:56Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (Eg. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chronic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chronic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=right || 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=right || 23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=right || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and inauterine infections || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029 https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=2010_Group_Project_4&diff=36291 2010-09-12T02:39:23Z

<p>Z3293029: /* Procedure */</p> <hr /> <div>=Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling=<br /> <br /> ==Introduction==<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling (PUBS) is an invasive pre-natal diagnostic procedure performed during the second trimester (between week 18 to 22) where a sample of fetal blood is extracted from the vein in the umbilical cord using a fine needle via the abdomen of the mother. The extracted blood can then be used to detect certain anomalies including chromosome abnormalities such as Down Syndrome, blood disorders such as Fetal Haemolytic Disease and intrauterine infection, growth retardation, and some birth defects as well as metabolic disorders. PUBS is often used when other diagnostic tests such as Ultrasound, Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling do not yield conclusive results. This pre-natal diagnostic technique is also used to deliver certain therapies such as the administration of medicine and transfusion of blood directly to the fetus.<br /> <br /> <br /> Although it is a very useful diagnostic technique, there are many complications associated with the procedure from haemorrhage and fetal bradycardia to premature birth and fetal death. The mortality rate associated directly to procedural factors has been found to be approximately 1 to 2 times out of every 100 procedures. The long list of associated risks have been found to be related to procedural factors such as duration and the number of punctures as well as individual circumstances of the patient for example gestational age. <br /> <br /> <br /> Despite the risks involved, the one of the benefits of PUBS over that of other pre-natal diagnostic techniques such as Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS), is that genetic information also known as Karyotypes is available much sooner after the procedure. This is especially important in cases requiring rapid diagnosis and/or management.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Procedure==<br /> <br /> '''''When is PUBS Performed?'''<br /> <br /> <br /> PUBS is an invasive procedure and as a result, it carries with it a relatively high risk of complications. Therefore, it is generally to be used in the case of high-risk pregnancies.<br /> A high-risk pregnancy is classified as such due to various factors that indicate a significantly increased likelihood of genetic defects. These may include:<br /> <br /> - an advanced maternal age of 35 and over<br /> <br /> - a previous pregnancy affected with chromosomal disorder<br /> <br /> -family history of genetic disorders (Eg. monogenic disease carrier status or balanced chromosomal translocation in a parent, history of X-linked or inborn metabolic disorders etc.)<br /> <br /> -abnormal results identified on a previously performed non-invasive procedure, such as ultrasound or maternal serum biochemistry screening<br /> (1)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> '''''PUBS in comparison with other diagnostic techniques'''<br /> <br /> PUBS is usually performed after non-invasive procedures such as ultrasound and biochemical markers, have indicated the possibility of genetic disorders. Because, these tests generally produce highly sensitive results, they are not always reliable at giving an accurate diagnosis. Therefore, an invasive technique such as PUBS is employed to in an attempt to provide more conclusive and accurate information.(3) <br /> <br /> PUBS may also be used when other invasive pre-natal diagnostic tests including chronic villi sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis do not yield conclusive results. These methods are similar in that they involve the examination of cell samples obtained directly from the developing fetal structures.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=1<br /> |-bgcolour=grey<br /> ! !! PUBS !! Chronic Villi Sampling !! Amniocentesis<br /> |-<br /> | risk of complications || align=right | 1-2% || 2% || 0.5-1% <br /> |-<br /> | recommended time period for testing || align=right || 23 weeks || 8-11 weeks || 16-18 weeks <br /> |-<br /> | available diagnostic analyses ||align=right || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies, detection of blood disorders and inauterine infections || karyotype and DNA analysis, enzyme studies || karyotype and DNA analysis, biochemical studies<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ''<br /> <br /> ----<br /> <br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling (PUBS) is the performed by the advancement of a needle within a ultrasound visual field to a targeted puncture site and consists of three fundamental steps.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 1 - Imaging'''<br /> <br /> An advanced imaging ultrasound is used to determine the location of where the umbilical cord inserts into the placenta. This ultrasound image is then used throughout the procedure in order to guide a thin needle through the abdomen and uterine wall of the mother and into the the umbilical vein running through the cord. <br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 2 - Retrieval of Fetal Blood Sample '''<br /> <br /> The needle is then inserted into the cord to retrieve a small sample of fetal blood. There are two main routes for the retrieval of fetal blood. The method used to perform the procedure is determined by the position of the placenta in the uterus and point of connection with the umbilical cord. The ideal sample site for PUBS is located at the root of the umbilical cord due to its stable fixed position which is less susceptible to disturbances caused by fetal movement compared to the free loops of the cord.<br /> <br /> <br /> {| border=&quot;1&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> | <br /> | '''Placenta Anterior'''<br /> | '''Placenta Posterior'''<br /> |-<br /> | '''Description'''<br /> | Placenta attached to anterior wall of uterus - the needle is inserted straight into the umbilical cord without penetrating the amnion and amniotic cavity<br /> | Placenta located on posterior wall of uterus - the needle must travel through the amniotic sac to reach the umbilical cord. This may cause some temporary bleeding and cramps<br /> |-<br /> | '''Diagram'''<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Anterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Anterior|center]]<br /> | [[Image:Placenta Posterior.jpg|thumb|Placenta Posterior|center]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> There are two techniques that can be used when obtaining the sample: freehand and needle-guided. The choice of technique is dependent on a number of factors including the location of the cord root and the preferences of the physician performing the procedure. <br /> <br /> 1. '''Freehand''' - allows lateral readjustment of needle direction once within the uterus. A transducer is used to navigate the needle to the specific sample site and is the more preferred technique due to the increased range of movement<br /> <br /> 2. '''Needle-guided''' - involves the insertion of a separate needle straight into the targeted puncture site with the aid of the transducer, which forms a fixed passage through with a second smaller needle passes to retrieve the fetal blood. Despite permitting precise alignment of the needle tract with the vessel, the range of movement is limited to a single plane of travel [[Image:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg|thumb|Doppler image of needle-guided technique|right]] <br /> <br /> <br /> It is also important to note when performing PUBS, that if the mother is Rh–negative, Rh Immune-Globulin (RhIG) is administered to the mother in order to prevent the development of Rh incompatibility and further sensitization.<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Step 3 - Sample Analysis'''<br /> <br /> The fetal blood sample is sent to a lab where it is screened for genetic defects and other disorders. The results for the test are usually available within 72 hours however under some circumstances, may take a few weeks to obtain the results. In the event of diagnosis, implementation of the most suitable procedure for management of the condition occurs or in extreme cases, the pregnancy is terminated.<br /> <br /> ==Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS==<br /> <br /> Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling also known as Cordocentesis like stated above is a pre-natal diagnostic test that is usually preformed to detect abnormalities such as Trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and Trisomy 18 (Edwards Disease) and blood disorders for example Fetal Hemolytic Disease. Yet on the whole Cordocentesis may be performed to help diagnose any of the concerns listed below:<br /> <br /> • Fetal anemia<br /> <br /> • Malfunction of the fetus<br /> <br /> • Isoimmunisation<br /> <br /> • Fetal platelet count of the mother<br /> <br /> • Fetal infections like rubella or toxoplasmosis<br /> <br /> • Respiratory illnesses<br /> <br /> • Congenital heart defects <br /> <br /> Yet one major disadvantage when comparing Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Sampling to other major testing method for example Choronic Villi Sampling (CVS) and Amniocentesis is that PUBS does not help test for neural tube defects such as Spina Bifida<br /> <br /> ==Associated Risk and Complications==<br /> <br /> ==Useful Links==<br /> <br /> '''Search Bookshelf''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=Books&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> '''Search Pubmed Now:''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&amp;cmd=search&amp;term=Percutaneous%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Sampling Percutaeous Umbilical Cord Sampling]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Glossary==<br /> <br /> '''Amnion:''' An extraembryonic membrane ectoderm and extraembryonic mesoderm in origin and forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid.<br /> <br /> '''Amniotic Cavity:''' The fluid-filled (amniotic fluid) extraembryonic coelom (cavity) formed initially by epiblast and then ectoderm and surrounding extraembryonic mesoderm. In humans, it forms the innermost fetal membrane, produces amniotic fluid expanding to fuse with the chorionic membrane during week 8 of development.<br /> <br /> '''Ultrasound:''' A non-invasive technique for visualizing and prenatal diagnosis of several features of development including: follicles in the ovaries, the gestational sac, fetus in the uterus, fetal parameters, and the placenta. The technique uses high-frequency sound waves that are reflected off internal structures. <br /> <br /> '''Umbilical Cord:''' (placental cord) The placental cord is the structure connecting the embryo/fetus to the placenta. It is initially extra-embryonic mesoderm forming the connecting stalk within which the placental blood vessels (arteries and veins) form. In human placental cords the placental blood vessels are initially paired, later in development only a single placental vein remains with a pair of placental arteries. This structure also contains the allantois, an extension from the hindgut cloaca then urogenital sinus. Blood collected from the placental cord following delivery is a source of cord blood stem cells.<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Template:Projects10}}</div>

Z3293029