IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1993836868-871_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Congenital hypothyroidism screening and the cutoff for thyrotropin measurement: Recommendations from the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Verkerk, P.H.
  • Buitendijk, S.E.
  • Verloove-Vanhorick, S.P.

Abstract

Objectives. There is little agreement as to the optimal cutoff point for thyrotropin testing in primary thyroxine screening programs for congenital hypothyroidism. Most programs in the United States use a cutoff point of 10% of the lowest thyroxine values, whereas in the Netherlands a cutoff point of 20% is used. Therefore, the results of the Dutch program may provide valuable information about the optimal cutoff point. Methods. The frequency distribution of screening thyroxine values was studied in all cases of permanent primary congenital hypothyroidism (n = 481) detected in 1 601 603 screened children born during the period from January 1, 1981, to December 31, 1989, in the Netherlands. Results. Programs using a 10% cutoff point would have missed 1.5% of cases. Above the 10% cutoff point, the marginal costs increase quite rapidly because of the escalating numbers of thyrotropin measurements necessary to detect one case of permanent primary congenital hypothyroidism: 20 000 in the range of 11% to 15% and 40 000 in the range of 16% to 20%. Conclusions. Based on these findings, a cutoff point of at least 10% is recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • Verkerk, P.H. & Buitendijk, S.E. & Verloove-Vanhorick, S.P., 1993. "Congenital hypothyroidism screening and the cutoff for thyrotropin measurement: Recommendations from the Netherlands," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 83(6), pages 868-871.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1993:83:6:868-871_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1993:83:6:868-871_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.