CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 335Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchCongenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down’s syndrome

Open access
Boyd, PA, DeVigan, C, Khoshnood, B, Loane, M, Garne, E, Dolk, H, EUROCAT working group·2008·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
DOI 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01700.xPMC PMC2344123
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective To ‘map’ the current (2004) state of prenatal screening in Europe. Design (i) Survey of country policies and (ii) analysis of data from EUROCAT (European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies) population‐based congenital anomaly registers. Setting Europe. Population Survey of prenatal screening policies in 18 countries and 1.13 million births in 12 countries in 2002–04. Methods (i) Questionnaire on national screening policies and termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly (TOPFA) laws in 2004. (ii) Analysis of data on prenatal detection and termination for Down’s syndrome and neural tube defects (NTDs) using the EUROCAT database. Main outcome measures Existence of national prenatal screening policies, legal gestation limit for TOPFA, prenatal detection and termination rates for Down’s syndrome and NTD. Results Ten of the 18 countries had a national country‐wide policy for Down’s syndrome screening and 14/18 for structural anomaly scanning. Sixty‐eight percent of Down’s syndrome cases (range 0–95%) were detected prenatally, of which 88% resulted in termination of pregnancy. Eighty‐eight percent (range 25–94%) of cases of NTD were prenatally detected, of which 88% resulted in termination. Countries with a first‐trimester screening policy had the highest proportion of prenatally diagnosed Down’s syndrome cases. Countries with no official national Down’s syndrome screening or structural anomaly scan policy had the lowest proportion of prenatally diagnosed Down’s syndrome and NTD cases. Six of the 18 countries had a legal gestational age limit for TOPFA, and in two countries, termination of pregnancy was illegal at any gestation. Conclusions There are large differences in screening policies between countries in Europe. These, as well as organisational and cultural factors, are associated with wide country variation in prenatal detection rates for Down’s syndrome and NTD.

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.1471-0528.2008.01700.x

Cites

19 of 19 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 19 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Leschot NJ, 1997, Prenatal Diagnosis in Europe, Eur J Hum Genet, 5

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–332 of 332

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Boyd, P., DeVigan, C., Khoshnood, B., Loane, M., Garne, E., Dolk, H., & EUROCAT working group
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • University of Ulster (GB)
  • Kolding Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Boyd, PA
ORCID
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-04-09
Volume
115
Issue
6
Pages
689-696
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
DOI
10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01700.x
PMC
PMC2344123
OpenAlex
W2015487852
Cited by
335
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 25
FWCI
18.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • European Commission
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
Keywords
Down syndrome, neural tube defects, prenatal diagnosis, first-trimester screening, gestational age limits, EUROCAT, country variation, Europe
MeSH terms
Abortion, Induced, Down Syndrome, Europe, Female, Genetic Testing, Gestational Age, Health Policy, Humans, Neural Tube Defects, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimesters, Prenatal Diagnosis, Surveys and Questionnaires, Ultrasonography, Prenatal

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