Cited by 115Congenital Heart Disease StudiesPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsCongenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the performance of second‐trimester screening for prenatal detection of congenital heart defects

Open access
van Velzen, Christine L., Ket, Johannes C.F., van de Ven, Peter M., Blom, Nico A., Haak, Monique C.·2018·International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics

Abstract

Background: The prenatal detection rate of congenital heart defects ( CHD s) is increasing, but reported rates vary. Objectives: To determine the performance of the second‐trimester anomaly scan to detect CHD . Search strategy: PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant studies in any language from inception to February 3, 2017. The search terms included “prenatal diagnosis” or “pregnancy,” “cardiovascular diseases” or “cardiac defects,” “congenital,” and “specificity,” or “sensitivity,” or “cohort study.” Selection criteria: Cohort studies assessing the detection rate of CHD during population‐based prenatal screening from 1995 were eligible for inclusion. Data collection and analysis: Data were collected from identified studies; authors were approached for additional data when necessary. A review and meta‐analysis were performed. When possible, separate analyses were undertaken for isolated CHD cases. Main results: Meta‐analysis of seven studies showed the pooled detection rate of CHD in unselected populations as 45.1% (95% confidence interval 33.5%–57.0%). However, the rate of detection of univentricular defects and heterotaxy was above 85%. Similar rates were found among cases of isolated CHD . Conclusions: Prenatal detection showed a strong correlation with CHD severity. The detection of conotruncal anomalies needs to improve. A thoroughly organized screening program will be essential to achieve a higher detection rate.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ijgo.12373

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 40 · Cited by 115

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Durand I, David N, Blaysat G, Marguet C. Diagnosis of congen- ital heart disease in a nonselected population in Upper Normandy: Retrospective study between 2003 and 2007 [in French]. Arch Pediatr. 2009;16:409-416.
  2. Bonnefoy R, Poinsot J, Vaillant MC, Chantepie A. Evolution of prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart diseases in Indre-et-Loire (France) over a period of 15 years [in French]. Arch Pediatr. 2011;18:512-517.

Authors
van Velzen, C. L., Ket, J. C. F., van de Ven, P. M., Blom, N. A., & Haak, M. C.
Affiliations
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology VU University Medical Center Amsterdam Netherlands
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics VU University Medical Center Amsterdam Netherlands
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-11-22
Volume
140
Issue
2
Pages
137-145
ISSN
  • 0020-6695 (ISSN-L)
  • 0020-7292
  • 1879-3479
OpenAlex
W2766276053
Cited by
115
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Congenital Heart Disease Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
Keywords
congenital heart disease, prenatal screening, second trimester anomaly scan, prenatal diagnosis, detection rate, conotruncal anomalies, heterotaxy syndrome, isolated congenital heart defects, screening programs
MeSH terms
Female, Heart Defects, Congenital, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, Second, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Cohort Studies, 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