Cited by 23Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyCongenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery

Sensitivity of first-trimester ultrasound in the detection of congenital anomalies in twin pregnancies: Population study and systematic review

Open access
D'Antonio, Francesco, Familiari, Alessandra, Thilaganathan, Basky, Papageorghiou, Aris T., Manzoli, Lamberto, Khalil, Asma, Bhide, Amar·2016·Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1111/aogs.13017

Cites

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?

  • 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].”
  • 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].”

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)
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
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