The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Screening for trisomy 21 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, free beta‐human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy‐associated plasma protein‐A
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: To derive a model and examine the performance of first‐trimester combined screening by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency (NT) thickness and maternal serum free beta‐human chorionic gonadotropin (β‐hCG) and pregnancy‐associated plasma protein‐A (PAPP‐A). Methods: Prospective combined screening for trisomy 21 was carried out at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks in 56 771 singleton pregnancies, including 56 376 cases with a normal karyotype or delivery of a phenotypically normal baby (unaffected group) and 395 cases with trisomy 21. The blood test and ultrasound scan were carried out in the same visit. In each case the maternal age‐related risk for trisomy 21 at term was calculated and adjusted according to the gestational age at the time of screening to derive the a‐priori risk. The measured NT was transformed into a likelihood ratio using the mixture model of NT distributions. The measured free β‐hCG and PAPP‐A were converted into a multiple of the median (MoM) for gestational age, adjusted for maternal weight, ethnicity, smoking status, method of conception and parity, and a likelihood ratio was subsequently calculated. The likelihood ratios for NT and for the biochemical markers were multiplied by the a‐priori risk to derive the patient‐specific risk. Detection rates and false‐positive rates were calculated by taking the proportions with risks above a given risk threshold after adjustment for maternal age according to the distribution of pregnancies in England and Wales in 2000–2002. These standardized rates were compared with detection and false‐positive rates estimated using Monte Carlo methods to sample from the modeled Gaussian distributions. Results: The performance of screening based on the model was in good agreement with that observed in our population. In a strategy for first‐trimester combined screening where the blood test and scan are carried out in the same visit it was estimated that, for false‐positive rates of 3% and 5%, the detection rates were 92% and 94%, respectively, at 11 weeks, 85% and 90% at 12 weeks, and 79% and 83% at 13 weeks. In an alternative strategy, with the blood taken at 10 weeks and the measurement of NT performed at 12 weeks, the estimated detection rates were 94% and 96% for false‐positive rates of 3% and 5%, respectively. Conclusions: The aim of the first‐trimester scan is not just to screen for trisomy 21 but also to diagnose an increasing number of fetal malformations. In this respect the ability to visualize fetal anatomy is better at 12–13 weeks than at 11 weeks. Consequently, the ideal gestation for combined testing in the same visit would be 12 weeks. An alternative strategy, with the blood taken at 10 weeks and the measurement of NT performed at 12 weeks, is associated with higher detection rates of trisomy 21. However, the cost of two‐stage screening would be higher and, in addition, the potential advantage in terms of detection rate may be eroded by the likely increased non‐compliance with the additional step. Copyright © 2008 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
Snijders, R., Noble, P., Sebire, N., Souka, A., & Nicolaides, K. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)11280-6 · Cited by 1,572
Nuchal translucency and other first-trimester sonographic markers of chromosomal abnormalities
Nicolaides, K. H. (2004) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.03.090 · Cited by 626
Self-citation
Cited by
Chiu, R. W. K., Akolekar, R., Zheng, Y. W. L., Leung, T. Y., Sun, H., Chan, K. C. A., Lun, F. M. F., Go, A. T. J. I., Lau, E. T., To, W. W. K., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c7401 · Cited by 774
Self-citationISUOG Practice Guidelines: performance of first‐trimester fetal ultrasound scan
(2013) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.12342 · Cited by 621
Self-citationFirst-Trimester Prediction of Hypertensive Disorders in Pregnancy
Poon, L. C. Y., Kametas, N. A., Maiz, N., Akolekar, R., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2009) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/hypertensionaha.108.127977 · Cited by 466
Self-citationAkolekar, R., Syngelaki, A., Sarquis, R., Zvanca, M., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2011) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.2660 · Cited by 444
Self-citationPrediction of small-for-gestation neonates from biophysical and biochemical markers at 11-13 weeks
Karagiannis, G., Akolekar, R., Sarquis, R., Wright, D., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2011) · Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy · doi:10.1159/000321694 · Cited by 195
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kagan, K. O., Wright, D., Baker, A., Sahota, D., & Nicolaides, K. H.
- Venue
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-05-06
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 618-624
- ISSN
- 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0705
- OpenAlex
- W2075791178
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 40.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Screening for trisomy 21 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, free beta‐human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy‐associated plasma protein‐A. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/uog.5331
- The paper
- Kagan, K. O., Wright, D., Baker, A., Sahota, D., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2008). Screening for trisomy 21 by maternal age, fetal nuchal translucency thickness, free beta‐human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy‐associated plasma protein‐A. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.5331
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.