The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Screening for congenital heart disease prenatally. Results of a 2½‐year study in the South East Thames Region
Abstract
Objective To assess the efficacy of four chamber view examination, during routine obstetric scanning, in the prenatal detection of fetuses with congenital heart disease. Design Prospective observational study. Setting Ten obstetric ultrasound units in the South East Thames Region. Subjects All pregnant women attending for routine obstetric ultrasound examination. Intervention Ultrasonographers performing routine ultrasound examinations were taught to obtain, and correctly interpret, the four chamber view of the fetal heart. When this view could not be achieved adequately, an attempt was made to identify a reason for failure and, if possible, to arrange a repeat scan. All suspected abnormalities were referred to a specialized unit. Main outcome measures Numbers of true abnormalities detected or overlooked, and the number in whom abnormality was suspected incorrectly. Results Over a 2.5‐year period, 69% of the known number of cardiac lesions associated with an abnormality of the four chamber view were detected prenatally during the routine obstetric scan, 10% were identified as a result of referal for other high‐risk factors and 21% were overlooked. The overall positive predictive value in the 10 obstetric units was 36%. Conclusions Prenatal screening for some forms of major congenital heart disease is possible by including examination of the four chamber view of the fetal heart in routine obstetric scans. However, there are important limiting factors that will influence the success of abnormality detection and must be taken into account if screening is to be effective nationwide.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): sonographic screening examination of the fetal heart
Carvalho, J., Allan, L., Chaoui, R., Copel, J., DeVore, G., Hecher, K., Lee, W., Munoz, H., Paladini, D., Tutschek, B., et al. (2013) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.12403 · Cited by 681
Self-citationPrenatal detection of congenital heart disease
Friedberg, M. K., Silverman, N. H., Moon-Grady, A. J., Tong, E., Nourse, J., Sorenson, B., Lee, J., & Hornberger, L. K. (2009) · The Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.01.050 · Cited by 299
Prenatal detection of congenital heart disease—results of a national screening programme
van Velzen, C., Clur, S., Rijlaarsdam, M., Bax, C., Pajkrt, E., Heymans, M., Bekker, M., Hruda, J., de Groot, C., Blom, N., et al. (2016) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13274 · Cited by 240
Marek, J., Tomek, V., Škovránek, J., Povýšilová, V., & Šamánek, M. (2011) · Heart · doi:10.1136/hrt.2010.206623 · Cited by 205
Xu, L., Liu, M., Shen, Z., Wang, H., Liu, X., Wang, X., Wang, S., Li, T., Yu, S., Hou, M., et al. (2020) · Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2019.101690 · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- SHARLAND, G. K., & ALLAN, L. D.
- Venue
- BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-03
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 220-225
- ISSN
- 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-0328
- 1471-0528
- OpenAlex
- W2131280680
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.04
- 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: Screening for congenital heart disease prenatally. Results of a 2½‐year study in the South East Thames Region. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb14503.x
- The paper
- SHARLAND, G. K., & ALLAN, L. D. (1992). Screening for congenital heart disease prenatally. Results of a 2½‐year study in the South East Thames Region. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb14503.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.