Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 530

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Integrated Screening for Down's Syndrome Based on Tests Performed during the First and Second Trimesters

Open access
Wald, N.J., Watt, H.C., Hackshaw, A.K.·1999·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Both first-trimester screening and second-trimester screening for Down's syndrome are effective means of selecting women for chorionic-villus sampling or amniocentesis, but there is uncertainty about which screening method should be used in practice. We propose a new screening method in which measurements obtained during both trimesters are integrated to provide a single estimate of a woman's risk of having a pregnancy affected by Down's syndrome. METHODS: We used data from published studies of various screening methods employed during the first and second trimesters. The first-trimester screening consisted of measurement of serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A in 77 pregnancies affected by Down's syndrome and 383 unaffected pregnancies and measurements of nuchal translucency obtained by ultrasonography in 326 affected and 95,476 unaffected pregnancies. The second-trimester tests were various combinations of measurements of serum alpha-fetoprotein, unconjugated estriol, human chorionic gonadotropin, and inhibin A in 77 affected and 385 unaffected pregnancies. RESULTS: When we used a risk of 1 in 120 or greater as the cutoff to define a positive result on the integrated screening test, the rate of detection of Down's syndrome was 85 percent, with a false positive rate of 0.9 percent. To achieve the same rate of detection, current screening tests would have higher false positive rates (5 to 22 percent). If the integrated test were to replace the triple test (measurements of serum alpha-fetoprotein, unconjugated estriol, and human chorionic gonadotropin), currently used with a 5 percent false positive rate, for screening during the second trimester, the detection rate would be higher 85 percent vs. 69 percent), with a reduction of four fifths in the number of invasive diagnostic procedures and consequent losses of normal fetuses. CONCLUSIONS: The integrated test detects more cases of Down's syndrome with a much lower false positive rate than the best currently available test.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199908123410701

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 530

Metadata

Authors
Wald, N. J., Watt, H. C., & Hackshaw, A. K.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1999-08-12
Volume
341
Issue
7
Pages
461-467
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1967882786
Cited by
530
References
1
FWCI
33.98
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: Integrated Screening for Down's Syndrome Based on Tests Performed during the First and Second Trimesters. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199908123410701
The paper
Wald, N. J., Watt, H. C., & Hackshaw, A. K. (1999). Integrated Screening for Down's Syndrome Based on Tests Performed during the First and Second Trimesters. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199908123410701

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.