Cited by 266Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsCongenital Anomalies and Fetal SurgeryFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders

Systematic review of first-trimester ultrasound screening for detection of fetal structural anomalies and factors that affect screening performance

Open access
Karim, J. N., Roberts, N. W., Salomon, L. J., Papageorghiou, A. T.·2017·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of first‐trimester ultrasound for the detection of fetal abnormalities and to establish which factors might impact on screening performance. Methods: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of all relevant publications was performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of two‐dimensional transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound in the detection of congenital fetal anomalies prior to 14 weeks' gestation. The reference standard was detection of abnormalities at birth or postmortem. Factors that may impact on detection rates were evaluated, including population characteristics, gestational age, healthcare setting, ultrasound modality, use of an anatomical checklist for detection of first‐trimester anomalies and type of malformation included in the study. In an effort to reduce the impact of study heterogeneity on the results of the meta‐analysis, data from the studies were analyzed within subgroups of major anomalies vs all types of anomaly and low‐risk/unselected populations vs high‐risk populations. Results: An electronic search (until 29 July 2015) identified 2225 relevant citations, from which a total of 30 studies, published between 1991 and 2014, were selected for inclusion. The pooled estimate for the detection of major abnormalities in low‐risk or unselected populations (19 studies, 115 731 fetuses) was 46.10% (95% CI , 36.88–55.46%). The detection rate for all abnormalities in low‐risk or unselected populations (14 studies, 97 976 fetuses) was 32.35% (95% CI , 22.45–43.12%), whereas in high‐risk populations (six studies, 2841 fetuses) it was 61.18% (95% CI , 37.71–82.19%). Of the factors examined for their impact on detection rate, there was a statistically significant relationship ( P < 0.0001) between the use of a standardized anatomical protocol during first‐trimester anomaly screening and its sensitivity for the detection of fetal anomalies in all subgroups. Conclusions: Detection rates of first‐trimester fetal anomalies ranged from 32% in low‐risk groups to more than 60% in high‐risk groups, demonstrating that first‐trimester ultrasound has the potential to identify a large proportion of fetuses affected with structural anomalies. The use of a standardized anatomical protocol improves the sensitivity of first‐trimester ultrasound screening for all anomalies and major anomalies in populations of varying risk. The development and introduction of international protocols with standard anatomical views should be undertaken in order to optimize first‐trimester anomaly detection. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.17246

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • The detection rate of structural anomalies in high-risk women was 61% (95% CI: 37.71-82.19%) compared to only 32% in low-risk pregnancies (95% CI: 22.45-43.12%).

    “Published data showed that the detection rate of structural anomalies in high-risk women was 61% (95% CI: 37.71–82.19%) compared to only 32% in low-risk pregnancies (95% CI: 22.45–43.12%) [14].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karim, J. N., Roberts, N. W., Salomon, L. J., & Papageorghiou, A. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades (FR)
  • St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Papageorghiou, A. T.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-09-07
Volume
50
Issue
4
Pages
429-441
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W2515583464
Cited by
266
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (submittedVersion)
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
first-trimester ultrasound screening, fetal structural anomalies, congenital malformations, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, transvaginal ultrasound, transabdominal ultrasound, vulnerable populations, low-risk population, gestational age, prenatal screening, healthcare settings, gestational diabetes screening
MeSH terms
Congenital Abnormalities, Clinical Protocols, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Reference Standards, 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