Talk:Chorionic villus sampling

Untitled

This article really needs better citations. The information does not appear to be very accurate or comprehensive.Kxw1 (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the data on CVS being just as dangerous as amniocentesis is particularly misleading. In the UK it's generally accepted that CVS carries about a 2-3.5% chance of miscarriage compared to 1% ish for amnio. I got this from textbooks but have no idea how to reference so shall leave this to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.42.102 (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just going to point out the discrepancy between the information here and that at the article on amniocentesis regarding relative (and absolute) riskiness of the two procedures. I'm not competent to judge the published data without a lot more intense study than I can give it, but it seems to me somebody who is ought to read the two side by side and try to establish a common basis in documentation for both. --Haruo (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the Fetal Medicine Foundation [1] the risk of miscarriage of both procedures is the same: around 1%--Moroderen (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

digit reduction defects

I remember reading that this type of injury occurred in the earlier days of testing (note that the reference is from 1995), but that now it is quite rare, as the technique has evolved. Can someone add references and a comment or new numbers?Milliemchi (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Why does it say mispelled 'chorionic villous sampling' when it is the British/Australian spelling?

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.177.210 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Villus is the correct spelling accepted in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.150 (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chorionic villus sampling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111035407/http://www.biocellcenter.com/en/services_research/stem_cells/ to http://www.biocellcenter.com/en/services_research/stem_cells/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111035235/http://www.biocellcenter.com/en/services_research/scientific_updates/ to http://www.biocellcenter.com/en/services_research/scientific_updates/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS166682%2B22-Oct-2009%2BPRN20091022
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525022510/http://teresastrasser.com/blog/2009/04/cvs-order-now-and-get-six-months-of-worry-free-pregnancy/ to http://teresastrasser.com/blog/2009/04/cvs-order-now-and-get-six-months-of-worry-free-pregnancy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)