Cited by 92Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsCongenital Anomalies and Fetal SurgeryFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders

Routine first-trimester ultrasound screening using a standardized anatomical protocol

Liao, Yimei, Wen, Huaxuan, Ouyang, Shuyuan, Yuan, Ying, Bi, Jingru, Guan, Yong, Fu, Qian, Yang, Xia +6 more·2021·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Background First-trimester ultrasound scans were introduced to China for nearly 20 years. The ability of first-trimester ultrasound screening to detect different malformations was variable. A recent systematic review concluded that the use of a standardized anatomic protocol was the most crucial factor to improve the sensitivity of first-trimester ultrasound screening for anomalies. Standardized sectional scans have long been used for routine anatomy screening during the second trimester. However, during the first trimester, most of the previous studies have described the observation of anatomic structures but have not specified clearly the standard sectional views. Objective We aimed to determine the performance of routine first-trimester scans using a standardized anatomic protocol for detecting structural abnormalities in China. Study design This was a large retrospective study involving 59,063 sequential unselected pregnancies. Scans at 11 to 13+6 weeks were performed in a single center during a 7-year span. All fetuses were examined following a predefined protocol for standardized views. Results From October 2008 to December 2015, first-trimester scans were performed in 53,349 pregnant women with available outcome. Of these, there were 1578 (3%) pregnancies that presented with at least 1 fetal structural abnormality. The detection rate for first-trimester screening was 43.1% (95% confidence interval, 40.6%-45.5%). Routine first-trimester scans detected 95.6% of abdominal wall defects, 66.3% of nervous system defects, 33.8% of limbs and skeleton malformations, 30.8% of facial abnormalities, 21.2% of urogenital abnormalities, 18.4% of thoracic and lung abnormalities, and 4.1% of gastrointestinal tract abnormalities. During the first trimester, 37.7% of cardiac defects were identified and included 57.9% of major cardiac defects and 2.6% of mild cardiac defects. A robust high detection rate for anencephaly, exencephaly, cephalocele, holoprosencephaly, exomphalos, gastroschisis, Pentalogy of Cantrell, sirenomelia, and body stalk anomaly was achieved during routine first-trimester scans. Conclusion A standardized anatomic protocol is advised when performing routine first-trimester ultrasound screening. It is recommended that screening for severe structural abnormalities should be extended to the first trimester.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.10.037

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • With proper clinical training, the first-trimester ultrasound scan proves both clinically and cost-effective for diagnosing major fetal structural anomalies, especially when using specific standardized protocols.

    “In fact, results from recent studies showed that with proper clinical training, the first-trimester ultrasound scan proves both clinically and cost-effective for diagnosing major fetal structural anomalies [32,33], especially when using specific standardized protocols [34].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liao, Y., Wen, H., Ouyang, S., Yuan, Y., Bi, J., Guan, Y., Fu, Q., Yang, X., Guo, W., Huang, Y., Zeng, Q., Qin, Y., Xiang, H., & Li, S.
Affiliations
Shenzhen Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital (CN)
Corresponding author
Li, Shengli
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-04
Volume
224
Issue
4
Pages
396.e1-396.e15
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3096221354
Cited by
92
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 2
FWCI
9.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (81771598,81571758)
  • Science and Technology Planning Project of Shenzhen Municipality
  • Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Program (JCYJ20170307091013214)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFC1002202, 81771598,81571758)
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, prenatal diagnosis, detection rate, cardiac defects, neural tube defects, abdominal wall defect, holoprosencephaly, omphalocele, pentalogy of Cantrell, sirenomelia, body stalk anomaly
MeSH terms
Congenital Abnormalities, Adolescent, Adult, Clinical Protocols, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Retrospective Studies, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Young Adult

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