Sensitivity of first-trimester ultrasound in the detection of congenital anomalies in twin pregnancies: Population study and systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: The first aim of this study was to ascertain the diagnostic performance of first‐trimester ultrasound in detecting congenital anomalies in twins. The secondary aim was to explore the strength of association between different pregnancy characteristics and early detection of structural anomalies in a large unselected population of twin pregnancies. A systematic review of the published literature was also carried out. Material and methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive twin pregnancies booked for antenatal care between 1996 and 2014. Predictive accuracy of those covariates independently associated with the occurrence of fetal anomalies was assessed with logistic regression analysis and receiver operating characteristics curves. Results: In all, 1064 twin pregnancies (820 dichorionic and 264 monochorionic) were included in the analysis. Forty‐two pregnancies had one or more fetuses with structural abnormalities. Detection of structural abnormalities using ultrasound was possible in the first trimester in 27.3% (95% confidence interval 15.0–42.8) of twin pregnancies. Monochorionicity (odds ratio 2.3, 95% confidence interval 1.1–4.7) and discordance in crown–rump length and nuchal translucency were associated with an increased risk of fetal anomalies. However, their predictive accuracy was only moderate (areas under the curve 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.6–0.8 and 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.6–0.8, for crown–rump length and nuchal translucency discrepancy, respectively). Conclusions: First‐trimester detection of structural abnormalities in twin pregnancies is possible in 27.3% (95% confidence interval 15.0–42.8) of cases. The likelihood for first‐trimester detection of structural anomalies in twins was maximum for cranial vault, midline brain and abdominal wall defects. Monochorionicity and increasing discrepancy in crown–rump length and nuchal translucency were associated with fetal structural abnormalities, although their predictive performance was only moderately good.
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?
Improved prenatal screening protocols and specialized ultrasound surveillance are needed in multiple gestations.
“With regards to twin pregnancies, results from a population study showed that the detection rate of anatomic anomalies was only 27.3% (95% CI: 15.0–42.8), highlighting the need for improved prenatal screening protocols and specialized ultrasound surveillance in multiple gestations [15].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [15]
In twin pregnancies, the detection rate of anatomic anomalies was 27.3% (95% CI: 15.0-42.8).
“With regards to twin pregnancies, results from a population study showed that the detection rate of anatomic anomalies was only 27.3% (95% CI: 15.0–42.8), highlighting the need for improved prenatal screening protocols and specialized ultrasound surveillance in multiple gestations [15].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [15]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 23
- Authors
- D'Antonio, F., Familiari, A., Thilaganathan, B., Papageorghiou, A. T., Manzoli, L., Khalil, A., & Bhide, A.
- Affiliations
- Fetal Medicine Unit Division of Developmental Sciences St George's University of London London UK
- St George's, University of London (GB)
- University of Chieti-Pescara (IT)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-10-20
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1359-1367
- ISSN
- 0001-6349 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0412
- OpenAlex
- W2518819884
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 0.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (acceptedVersion)
- Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
- Institutional Research Information System University of Ferrara (University of Ferrara) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
- Keywords
- twin pregnancy, first-trimester ultrasound, congenital malformations, fetal structural anomalies, monochorionic twins, dichorionic twins, nuchal translucency, diagnostic accuracy, cranial vault defects, abdominal wall defect
- MeSH terms
- Congenital Abnormalities, Adult, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Retrospective Studies, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Logistic Models, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Pregnancy, Twin
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