The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Efficacy of Routine Fetal Ultrasound Screening for Congenital Heart Disease in Normal Pregnancy
Abstract
Background Second trimester routine ultrasound evaluation of the fetal heart by means of the four-chamber view has been proposed for prenatal detection of cardiac anomalies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of this procedure. Methods and Results A prospective follow-up study on 6922 scanned fetuses was performed. Pregnant women without known risk factors who were scheduled for a routine fetal ultrasound examination between 16 and 24 weeks gestation were invited to participate. Follow-up until 6 months postpartum was available for 5660 subjects (81.8%), of whom 5319 fulfilled all eligibility criteria. By comparing the prenatal diagnosis to the postnatal diagnosis, we obtained sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value (positive and negative). A total of 80 cases of congenital malformations were diagnosed during the study: 44 cases of congenital heart disease, 40 cases of noncardiac malformations, and a combination of the two in 4 cases. The fetal four chamber–view examination was considered abnormal in 7 women who were subsequently referred for extensive fetal ultrasound examination. Two proved to be carrying an affected fetus. Similarly, prenatal referral of 14 women because of suspected noncardiac malformations yielded 12 such cases. The fetal four chamber–view examination had a sensitivity of 4.5% (95% CI, 0.6% to 15%). Sensitivity for noncardiac anomalies was 30% (95% CI, 16.6% to 46.5%). Overall sensitivity of ultrasound examination was 16.3% (95% CI, 2.09% to 48.8%). Specificity and negative predictive value were high (>98%). The positive predictive value was low with wide CIs. Conclusions These results suggest that the current mode of routine prenatal ultrasound screening for congenital malformations is inefficient, particularly for cardiac anomalies.
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
Rychik, J., Ayres, N., Cuneo, B., Gotteiner, N., Hornberger, L., Spevak, P. J., & Van Der Veld, M. (2004) · Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography · doi:10.1016/j.echo.2004.04.011 · Cited by 458
Prenatal 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
Guidelines for fetal echocardiography
Satomi, G. (2015) · Pediatrics International · doi:10.1111/ped.12467 · Cited by 44
Ritchie, K., Bradbury, I., Slattery, J., Wright, D., Iqbal, K., & Penney, G. (2005) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00560.x · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Buskens, E., Grobbee, D. E., Frohn-Mulder, I. M. E., Stewart, P. A., Juttmann, R. E., Wladimiroff, J. W., & Hess, J.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 1996-07
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 67-72
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2068773931
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.77
- 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: Efficacy of Routine Fetal Ultrasound Screening for Congenital Heart Disease in Normal Pregnancy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.94.1.67
- The paper
- Buskens, E., Grobbee, D. E., Frohn-Mulder, I. M. E., Stewart, P. A., Juttmann, R. E., Wladimiroff, J. W., & Hess, J. (1996). Efficacy of Routine Fetal Ultrasound Screening for Congenital Heart Disease in Normal Pregnancy. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.94.1.67
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.