Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,081

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

First-Trimester or Second-Trimester Screening, or Both, for Down's Syndrome

Open access
Malone, Fergal D., Canick, Jacob A., Ball, Robert H., Nyberg, David A., Comstock, Christine H., Bukowski, Radek, Berkowitz, Richard L., Gross, Susan J., Dugoff, Lorraine, Craigo, Sabrina D., Timor-Tritsch, Ilan E., Carr, Stephen R., Wolfe, Honor M., Dukes, Kimberly, Bianchi, Diana W., Rudnicka, Alicja R., Hackshaw, Allan K., Lambert-Messerlian, Geralyn, Wald, Nicholas J., D'Alton, Mary E.·2005·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain how best to screen pregnant women for the presence of fetal Down's syndrome: to perform first-trimester screening, to perform second-trimester screening, or to use strategies incorporating measurements in both trimesters. METHODS: Women with singleton pregnancies underwent first-trimester combined screening (measurement of nuchal translucency, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A [PAPP-A], and the free beta subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin at 10 weeks 3 days through 13 weeks 6 days of gestation) and second-trimester quadruple screening (measurement of alpha-fetoprotein, total human chorionic gonadotropin, unconjugated estriol, and inhibin A at 15 through 18 weeks of gestation). We compared the results of stepwise sequential screening (risk results provided after each test), fully integrated screening (single risk result provided), and serum integrated screening (identical to fully integrated screening, but without nuchal translucency). RESULTS: First-trimester screening was performed in 38,167 patients; 117 had a fetus with Down's syndrome. At a 5 percent false positive rate, the rates of detection of Down's syndrome were as follows: with first-trimester combined screening, 87 percent, 85 percent, and 82 percent for measurements performed at 11, 12, and 13 weeks, respectively; with second-trimester quadruple screening, 81 percent; with stepwise sequential screening, 95 percent; with serum integrated screening, 88 percent; and with fully integrated screening with first-trimester measurements performed at 11 weeks, 96 percent. Paired comparisons found significant differences between the tests, except for the comparison between serum integrated screening and combined screening. CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester combined screening at 11 weeks of gestation is better than second-trimester quadruple screening but at 13 weeks has results similar to second-trimester quadruple screening. Both stepwise sequential screening and fully integrated screening have high rates of detection of Down's syndrome, with low false positive rates.

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/nejmoa043693

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. 10.1136/bmj.304.6831.867 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0223(199709)17:9<821::AID-PD154>3.0.CO;2-5 · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0223(199709)17:9<821::aid-pd154>3.0.co;2-5
  3. 10.1016/j.obstetgynecol.2003.08.004 · DOI
  4. 10.1056/NEJMoa025273 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1067/mob.2002.126980 · DOI
  6. 10.1056/NEJM199908123410701 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1002/pd.974 · DOI
  8. Hadlock FP, 1992, Radiology, 182, 501, 10.1148/radiology.182.2.1732970 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1136/jms.9.1.2 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Wald N, Hackshaw A. Tests using multiple markers. In: Wald N, Leck I, eds. Antenatal and neonatal screening. 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2000:23-57. · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780192628268.003.0002
  11. 10.1136/jms.7.2.74 · doi:10.1136/jms.7.2.74
  12. Wald NJ, 1997, J Med Screen, 4, 181, 10.1177/096914139700400402 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000173318.54978.1f · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000173318.54978.1f
  14. 10.1002/pd.840 · doi:10.1002/pd.840

Cited by

See all 1,081

Metadata

Authors
Malone, F. D., Canick, J. A., Ball, R. H., Nyberg, D. A., Comstock, C. H., Bukowski, R., Berkowitz, R. L., Gross, S. J., Dugoff, L., Craigo, S. D., Timor-Tritsch, I. E., Carr, S. R., Wolfe, H. M., Dukes, K., Bianchi, D. W., Rudnicka, A. R., Hackshaw, A. K., Lambert-Messerlian, G., Wald, N. J., & D'Alton, M. E.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2005-11-10
Volume
353
Issue
19
Pages
2001-2011
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2117315526
Cited by
1,081
References
2
FWCI
57.63
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: First-Trimester or Second-Trimester Screening, or Both, for Down's Syndrome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa043693
The paper
Malone, F. D., Canick, J. A., Ball, R. H., Nyberg, D. A., Comstock, C. H., Bukowski, R., Berkowitz, R. L., Gross, S. J., Dugoff, L., Craigo, S. D., Timor-Tritsch, I. E., Carr, S. R., Wolfe, H. M., Dukes, K., Bianchi, D. W., Rudnicka, A. R., Hackshaw, A. K., Lambert-Messerlian, G., Wald, N. J., & D'Alton, M. E. (2005). First-Trimester or Second-Trimester Screening, or Both, for Down's Syndrome. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa043693

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.