Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 362

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving the effectiveness of routine prenatal screening for major congenital heart defects

Open access
Carvalho, J S, Mavrides, E, Shinebourne, E A, Campbell, S, Thilaganathan, B·2002·Heart

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of adding outlet views to the four chamber view in routine prenatal ultrasound screening for major congenital heart defects (CHD) as performed by trained sonographers, and to compare the procedure with current practice. Design and setting: Prospective observational study at a London teaching hospital. Participants and methods: 9277 women booked at a single institution (80% had first trimester nuchal translucency measurement) due to have routine fetal cardiac screening using the four chamber and outflow tract views at > 18 weeks of gestation. Main outcome measure: Identification of major CHD in chromosomally normal and abnormal pregnancies antenatally or postnatally. Results: There were 40 abnormalities (4.3/1000), of which 30 were chromosomally normal (3.3/1000). The overall antenatal detection rate was 75% (95% confidence interval (CI) 59% to 87%) and 70% (95% CI 51% to 85%) for euploid pregnancies. Abnormal cardiac views accounted for 70% of all prenatal diagnoses, 30% of which were made at ≤ 18 weeks. The sensitivity of cardiac views during the first scan at > 18 weeks was 52%. Of all patients undergoing nuchal translucency screening, 34 had major CHD, nine with increased nuchal translucency (26.5%). Factors influencing the results of this screening programme were training and audit of operators, adequate equipment for antenatal examination, ease of access, and low threshold for referral to specialised fetal echocardiography. Conclusion: Adding ventricular outlet views to the four chamber assessment of the heart at routine fetal anomaly scans at > 18 weeks is the most effective technique to detect CHD prenatally. The success of such a programme depends on an infrastructure committed to continuous in house training of obstetric ultrasonographers coupled with feedback from specialised fetal cardiologists, as well as adequate resource allocation to obstetric hospitals involved with antenatal screening.

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 · 10.1136/heart.88.4.387

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 362

Metadata

Authors
Carvalho, J. S., Mavrides, E., Shinebourne, E. A., Campbell, S., & Thilaganathan, B.
Venue
Heart
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-10
Volume
88
Issue
4
Pages
387-391
ISSN
  • 1355-6037 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-201X
OpenAlex
W2154554522
Cited by
362
References
1
FWCI
11.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Improving the effectiveness of routine prenatal screening for major congenital heart defects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/heart.88.4.387
The paper
Carvalho, J. S., Mavrides, E., Shinebourne, E. A., Campbell, S., & Thilaganathan, B. (2002). Improving the effectiveness of routine prenatal screening for major congenital heart defects. Heart. https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.88.4.387

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.