Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound screening for fetal structural abnormalities during the first and second trimester of pregnancy in low-risk and unselected populations
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Prenatal ultrasound is widely used to screen for structural anomalies before birth. While this is traditionally done in the second trimester, there is an increasing use of first-trimester ultrasound for early detection of lethal and certain severe structural anomalies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in detecting fetal structural anomalies before 14 and 24 weeks' gestation in low-risk and unselected pregnant women and to compare the current two main prenatal screening approaches: a single second-trimester scan (single-stage screening) and a first- and second-trimester scan combined (two-stage screening) in terms of anomaly detection before 24 weeks' gestation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science), Arts & Humanities Citation Index and Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science) from 1 January 1997 to 22 July 2022. We limited our search to studies published after 1997 and excluded animal studies, reviews and case reports. No further restrictions were applied. We also screened reference lists and citing articles of each of the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included low-risk or unselected pregnant women undergoing a first- and/or second-trimester fetal anomaly scan, conducted at 11 to 14 or 18 to 24 weeks' gestation, respectively. The reference standard was detection of anomalies at birth or postmortem. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook study selection, quality assessment (QUADAS-2), data extraction and evaluation of the certainty of evidence (GRADE approach). We used univariate random-effects logistic regression models for the meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity. MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-seven studies covering 7,057,859 fetuses (including 25,202 with structural anomalies) were included. No study was deemed low risk across all QUADAS-2 domains. Main methodological concerns included risk of bias in the reference standard domain and risk of partial verification. Applicability concerns were common in studies evaluating first-trimester scans and two-stage screening in terms of patient selection due to frequent recruitment from single tertiary centres without exclusion of referrals. We reported ultrasound accuracy for fetal structural anomalies overall, by severity, affected organ system and for 46 specific anomalies. Detection rates varied widely across categories, with the highest estimates of sensitivity for thoracic and abdominal wall anomalies and the lowest for gastrointestinal anomalies across all tests. The summary sensitivity of a first-trimester scan was 37.5% for detection of structural anomalies overall (95% confidence interval (CI) 31.1 to 44.3; low-certainty evidence) and 91.3% for lethal anomalies (95% CI 83.9 to 95.5; moderate-certainty evidence), with an overall specificity of 99.9% (95% CI 99.9 to 100; low-certainty evidence). Two-stage screening had a combined sensitivity of 83.8% (95% CI 74.7 to 90.1; low-certainty evidence), while single-stage screening had a sensitivity of 50.5% (95% CI 38.5 to 62.4; very low-certainty evidence). The specificity of two-stage screening was 99.9% (95% CI 99.7 to 100; low-certainty evidence) and for single-stage screening, it was 99.8% (95% CI 99.2 to 100; moderate-certainty evidence). Indirect comparisons suggested superiority of two-stage screening across all analyses regarding sensitivity, with no significant difference in specificity. However, the certainty of the evidence is very low due to the absence of direct comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A first-trimester scan has the potential to detect lethal and certain severe anomalies with high accuracy before 14 weeks' gestation, despite its limited overall sensitivity. Conversely, two-stage screening shows high accuracy in detecting most fetal structural anomalies before 24 weeks' gestation with high sensitivity and specificity. In a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 fetuses, the first-trimester scan is expected to correctly identify 113 out of 124 fetuses with lethal anomalies (91.3%) and 665 out of 1776 fetuses with any anomaly (37.5%). However, 79 false-positive diagnoses are anticipated among 98,224 fetuses (0.08%). Two-stage screening is expected to correctly identify 1448 out of 1776 cases of structural anomalies overall (83.8%), with 118 false positives (0.1%). In contrast, single-stage screening is expected to correctly identify 896 out of 1776 cases before 24 weeks' gestation (50.5%), with 205 false-positive diagnoses (0.2%). This represents a difference of 592 fewer correct identifications and 88 more false positives compared to two-stage screening. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the uncertainty surrounding the additional benefits of two-stage versus single-stage screening, as there are no studies directly comparing them. Moreover, the evidence supporting the accura
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
With proper clinical training, the first-trimester ultrasound scan proves both clinically and cost-effective for diagnosing major fetal structural anomalies, especially when using specific standardized protocols.
“In fact, results from recent studies showed that with proper clinical training, the first-trimester ultrasound scan proves both clinically and cost-effective for diagnosing major fetal structural anomalies [32,33], especially when using specific standardized protocols [34].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
Cites
Liu, L., Oza, S., Hogan, D., Chu, Y., Perin, J., Zhu, J., Lawn, J. E., Cousens, S., Mathers, C., & Black, R. E. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31593-8 · Cited by 3,453 · see citing works
Donofrio, M. T., Moon-Grady, A. J., Hornberger, L. K., Copel, J. A., Sklansky, M. S., Abuhamad, A., Cuneo, B. F., Huhta, J. C., Jonas, R. A., Krishnan, A., et al. (2014) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000437597.44550.5d · Cited by 1,275 · see citing works
<scp>ISUOG</scp> Practice Guidelines: performance of first‐trimester fetal ultrasound scan
(2013) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.12342 · Cited by 621 · see citing works
Prenatal detection of congenital heart disease—results of a national screening programme
van Velzen, C., Clur, S., Rijlaarsdam, M., Bax, C., Pajkrt, E., Heymans, M., Bekker, M., Hruda, J., de Groot, C., Blom, N., et al. (2016) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13274 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Self-citationPrenatal detection of transposition of the great arteries reduces mortality and morbidity
van Velzen, C. L., Haak, M. C., Reijnders, G., Rijlaarsdam, M. E. B., Bax, C. J., Pajkrt, E., Hruda, J., Galindo‐Garre, F., Bilardo, C. M., de Groot, C. J. M., et al. (2015) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.14689 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Self-citationDel Bianco, A., Russo, S., Lacerenza, N., Rinaldi, M., Rinaldi, G., Nappi, L., & Greco, P. (2006) · Journal of Perinatal Medicine · doi:10.1515/jpm.2006.059 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Sepulveda, W., & Wong, A. E. (2013) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.4235 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
De Robertis, V., Rembouskos, G., Fanelli, T., Volpe, G., Muto, B., & Volpe, P. (2017) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.5067 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Everwijn, S. M. P., van Nisselrooij, A. E. L., Rozendaal, L., Clur, S. B., Pajkrt, E., Hruda, J., Linskens, I. H., van Lith, J. M., Blom, N. A., & Haak, M. C. (2018) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.5347 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines
Boureka, E., Tsakiridis, I., Michos, G., Liberis, A., Giouleka, S., Mamopoulos, A., Kalogiannidis, I., & Dagklis, T. (2026) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics16111695
- Authors
- Buijtendijk, M. F., Bet, B. B., Leeflang, M. M., Shah, H., Reuvekamp, T., Goring, T., Docter, D., Timmerman, M. G., Dawood, Y., Lugthart, M. A., Berends, B., Limpens, J., Pajkrt, E., van den Hoff, M. J., & de Bakker, B. S.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
- Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital (GB)
- Department of Medical Biology; Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam; Amsterdam Netherlands
- ORCID
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-05-09
- Volume
- 2024
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- CD014715-CD014715
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- PMC
- PMC11079979
- OpenAlex
- W4396772736
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 5.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
- Keywords
- fetal structural anomalies, prenatal ultrasound screening, first-trimester ultrasound, second-trimester ultrasound, two-stage screening, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, low-risk pregnancy, abdominal wall anomalies, gastrointestinal anomalies, congenital heart disease, neural tube defects, craniofacial anomalies, limb malformations
- MeSH terms
- Congenital Abnormalities, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Pregnancy Trimester, Second, Sensitivity and Specificity, Bias, Ultrasonography, Prenatal
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review