Skip to main content
NCBI home page
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1993 Nov 15;149(10):1435–1440.

Case-control study of prenatal ultrasonography exposure in children with delayed speech.

J D Campbell 1, R W Elford 1, R F Brant 1
PMCID: PMC1485930  PMID: 8221427

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is an association between prenatal ultrasound exposure and delayed speech in children. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Network of community physicians affiliated with the Primary Care Research Unit, University of Calgary. SUBJECTS: Thirty-four practitioners identified 72 children aged 24 to 100 months who had undergone a formal speech-language evaluation and were found to have delayed speech of unknown cause by a speech-language pathologist. For each case subject the practitioners found two control subjects matched for sex, date of birth, sibling birth order and associated health problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of prenatal ultrasound exposure and delayed speech. RESULTS: The children with delayed speech had a higher rate of ultrasound exposure than the control subjects. The findings suggest that a child with delayed speech is about twice as likely as a child without delayed speech to have been exposed to prenatal ultrasound waves (odds ratio 2.8, 95% confidence limit 1.5 to 5.3; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: An association between prenatal ultrasonography exposure and delayed speech was found. If there is no obvious clinical indication for diagnostic in-utero ultrasonography, physicians might be wise to caution their patients about the vulnerability of the fetus to noxious agents.

Full text

PDF
1435

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bennett M. J., Little G., Dewhurst J., Chamberlain G. Predictive value of ultrasound measurement in early pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1982 May;89(5):338–341. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1982.tb05074.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown B. S. How safe is diagnostic ultrasonography? Can Med Assoc J. 1984 Aug 15;131(4):307–311. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. David H., Weaver J. B., Pearson J. F. Doppler ultrasound and fetal activity. Br Med J. 1975 Apr 12;2(5962):62–64. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5962.62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 May;125(5):761–768. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hellman L. M., Duffus G. M., Donald I., Sundén B. Safety of diagnostic ultrasound in obstetrics. Lancet. 1970 May 30;1(7657):1133–1134. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(70)91212-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hertz R. H., Timor-Tritsch I., Dierker L. J., Jr, Chik L., Rosen M. G. Continuous ultrasound and fetal movement. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979 Sep 1;135(1):152–154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lyons E. A., Dyke C., Toms M., Cheang M. In utero exposure to diagnostic ultrasound: a 6-year follow-up. Radiology. 1988 Mar;166(3):687–690. doi: 10.1148/radiology.166.3.3277240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Pennington B. F., Smith S. D. Genetic influences on learning disabilities and speech and language disorders. Child Dev. 1983 Apr;54(2):369–387. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Sackett D. L. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis. 1979;32(1-2):51–63. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(79)90012-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Salvesen K. A., Bakketeig L. S., Eik-nes S. H., Undheim J. O., Okland O. Routine ultrasonography in utero and school performance at age 8-9 years. Lancet. 1992 Jan 11;339(8785):85–89. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)90998-i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Sander E. K. When are speech sounds learned? J Speech Hear Disord. 1972 Feb;37(1):55–63. doi: 10.1044/jshd.3701.55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Scheidt P. C., Stanley F., Bryla D. A. One-year follow-up of infants exposed to ultrasound in utero. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Aug 1;131(7):743–748. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(78)90238-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Stark C. R., Orleans M., Haverkamp A. D., Murphy J. Short- and long-term risks after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in utero. Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Feb;63(2):194–200. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Stewart H. D., Stewart H. F., Moore R. M., Jr, Garry J. Compilation of reported biological effects data and ultrasound exposure levels. J Clin Ultrasound. 1985 Mar-Apr;13(3):167–186. doi: 10.1002/jcu.1870130304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Stratmeyer M. E., Christman C. L. Biological effects of ultrasound. Women Health. 1982 Fall-Winter;7(3-4):65–81. doi: 10.1300/j013v07n03_06. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Tarantal A. F., Hendrickx A. G. Evaluation of the bioeffects of prenatal ultrasound exposure in the cynomolgus macaque (Macaca fascicularis): I. Neonatal/infant observations. Teratology. 1989 Feb;39(2):137–147. doi: 10.1002/tera.1420390206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ultrasound in pregnancy. Consensus statement, 1986. Norwegian Institute of Hospital Research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1987;3(3):463–470. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ury H. K. Efficiency of case-control studies with multiple controls per case: continuous or dichotomous data. Biometrics. 1975 Sep;31(3):643–649. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Waldenström U., Axelsson O., Nilsson S., Eklund G., Fall O., Lindeberg S., Sjödin Y. Effects of routine one-stage ultrasound screening in pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1988 Sep 10;2(8611):585–588. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)90636-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES