Systematic review of first-trimester ultrasound screening for detection of fetal structural anomalies and factors that affect screening performance
Open accessAbstract
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
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?
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].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [14]
Cites
<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
Self-citationMaiz, N., Valencia, C., Kagan, K. O., Wright, D., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2009) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.6330 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
First and second trimester screening for fetal structural anomalies
Edwards, L., & Hui, L. (2018) · Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.siny.2017.11.005 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Drukker, L., Sharma, H., Karim, J. N., Droste, R., Noble, J. A., & Papageorghiou, A. T. (2022) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.24975 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Self-citationFirst-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
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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