Cited by 33Congenital Heart Disease StudiesPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsCongenital heart defects research

Performance of First-Trimester Fetal Echocardiography in Diagnosing Fetal Heart Defects: Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

Yu, Dongmei, Sui, Lun, Zhang, Nan·2020·Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Early fetal echocardiography is becoming increasing common during the nuchal translucency scan period. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the accuracy of first-trimester fetal echocardiography in diagnosing congenital heart defects (CHDs). METHODS: The databases of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were systematically searched for the candidate articles, and the references of included studies were also examined. We recorded the characteristics of the included studies and assessed the quality of each study by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated with Meta-Disc version 1.4 software (Ramón y Cajal Hospital, Madrid, Spain). We also evaluated the publication bias by using Stata version 12.0 software (StataCorp, College Station, TX). RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 18 studies with 26,201 fetal hearts. The overall pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, and NLR were 0.750, 0.999, 392.95, and 0.277, respectively. The DOR and AUC were 1736.0 and 0.9331. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC for major CHDs were 0.838, 1.000, 725.69, 0.203, 5084.8, and 0.9617. CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester fetal echocardiography had high value in diagnosing CHDs, especially major CHDs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jum.15123

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • First-trimester early fetal echocardiography achieved a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.838 and 1.000, respectively, for diagnosing major fetal heart defects.

    “This was also highlighted by a recent meta-analysis, which showed that first-trimester early fetal echocardiography achieved a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.838 and 1.000, respectively, for diagnosing major fetal heart defects [48].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yu, D., Sui, L., & Zhang, N.
Affiliations
Qingdao Women and Children's Hospital (CN)
Corresponding author
Yu, Dongmei
Venue
Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-08-29
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
471-480
ISSN
  • 0278-4297 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9613
OpenAlex
W2971191647
Cited by
33
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Congenital Heart Disease Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Congenital heart defects research
Keywords
congenital heart disease, major congenital heart defects, diagnostic accuracy, prenatal diagnosis, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Echocardiography, Female, Fetal Heart, Heart Defects, Congenital, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, 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