Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 200

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Maternal serum screening for Down's syndrome: the effect of routine ultrasound scan determination of gestational age and adjustment for maternal weight

WALD, N. J., CUCKLE, H. S., DENSEM, J. W., KENNARD, A., SMITH, D.·1992·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Objective To investigate the effect of using a routine ultrasound estimate of gestational age and maternal weight adjustment on maternal serum alpha‐fetoprotein (AFP), unconjugated oestriol (uE 3) and human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) levels in antenatal screening for Down's syndrome. Design Women with a singleton pregnancy without Down's syndrome were screened using the three serum markers and an estimate of gestational age based on ‘dates’ (time since first day of the last menstrual period) and one based on an ultrasound scan examination was recorded together with maternal weight. Setting Women attending the Homerton Hospital, Hackney, for their antenatal care between February 1989 and January 1990. Subjects 2113 women with a singleton pregnancy without Down's syndrome. Results The use of ultrasound to estimate gestational age (usually based on the biparietal diameter of the fetal skull) led to a significant reduction in the variance of each marker at a given week of pregnancy. The level of each marker was negatively associated with maternal weight, so that adjustment for weight also led to a reduction in variance. These data on gestational age and maternal weight, taken together with published data on pregnancies associated with Down's syndrome, indicate that the routine use of ultrasound to estimate gestational age will increase the detection rate from 58% to 67% while maintaining the false‐positive rate at 5%, or reduce the false‐positive rate from 5.7% to 3.1% while maintaining the detection rate at 60%. Routine maternal weight adjustment for the serum marker levels was much less useful, increasing the detection rate by about 0.5% for a given false‐positive rate, or reducing the false‐positive rate about 0.1% for a given detection rate. Conclusion An ultrasound gestational age estimate available at the time of Down's syndrome screening confers a substantial advantage to screening performance with a further small benefit resulting from maternal weight adjustment, which is worth adopting if it can be done without difficulty or extra cost.

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 · 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb14474.x

Cites

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 200

Metadata

Authors
WALD, N. J., CUCKLE, H. S., DENSEM, J. W., KENNARD, A., & SMITH, D.
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1992-02
Volume
99
Issue
2
Pages
144-149
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
OpenAlex
W2154969996
Cited by
200
References
0
FWCI
28.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Maternal serum screening for Down's syndrome: the effect of routine ultrasound scan determination of gestational age and adjustment for maternal weight. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb14474.x
The paper
WALD, N. J., CUCKLE, H. S., DENSEM, J. W., KENNARD, A., & SMITH, D. (1992). Maternal serum screening for Down's syndrome: the effect of routine ultrasound scan determination of gestational age and adjustment for maternal weight. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb14474.x

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.