Clinical and cost-effectiveness of detailed anomaly ultrasound screening in the first trimester: A mixed-methods study
Open accessAbstract
Background: In the United Kingdom, pregnant women are offered two scans: at 11–14 and 18–20 weeks’ gestation. Current guidance supports fetal anatomical screening at the second scan, but evidence suggests earlier detection is possible. Objectives: To determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of a detailed two-dimensional ultrasound scan in the first trimester for detection of fetal anomalies, in addition to usual practice. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Nationwide survey. Analysis of National Congenital Anomaly Disease Registry data. Consensus procedure. Prospective survey of parental opinions. Probabilistic decision-analytic model for cost-effectiveness. Value-of-information analysis. Setting: United Kingdom National Health Service. Participants: Pregnant women and partners. Interventions: Detailed anomaly ultrasound at 11–14 weeks’ gestation, in addition to usual practice. Main outcome measures: Diagnostic accuracy, protocol development, health economic modelling and value-of-information analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (Web of Science Core Collection); National Congenital Anomaly Disease Registry; European Congenital Anomalies Registry; Surveys of National Health Service Trusts; screening sonographers, midwives and doctors; and parents; National Schedule of National Health Service Costs (2019–20). Review methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy. Results: First-trimester ultrasound detects 93.3% (95% confidence interval 90.4% to 95.7%) of a pre-selected group of eight major anomalies with specificity of 99.99% (95% confidence interval 99.98% to 99.99%) and positive predictive value of 96.5% (95% confidence interval 93.3 to 98.8, 416,877 fetuses, 40 studies). For major cardiac anomalies, the respective data are 55.8% (95% confidence interval 45.9% to 65.5%), 99.98% (95% confidence interval 99.97% to 99.99%) and 94.85% (95% confidence interval 91.63% to 97.32%, 306,872 fetuses, 45 studies). Of NHS trusts surveyed, 77% currently perform first-trimester anatomy assessment, with evidence of inequity of care; earlier screening resulted in more diagnoses before 16 weeks’ gestation. A consensus procedure (n = 172) developed an anatomical protocol and minimum targets for diagnosis. Parental survey (n = 1374) indicated that over 90% would opt for such screening. Modelling of singleton pregnancies undergoing earlier anomaly screening using two-dimensional ultrasound was associated with increased mean healthcare costs per woman (£11, 95% confidence interval £1 to £29) and maternal quality-adjusted life-years (0.002065, 95% confidence interval 0.000565 to 0.00358), an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of £5270, with likelihood of being cost-effective at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year of over 95%. Additional modelling predicted reductions in infant healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Decision uncertainty was low. Value-of-information analysis of cost-effectiveness results showed no groups of parameters for which further research to reduce uncertainty would likely prove cost-effective. Limitations: Study heterogeneity; the lack of a universal reference standard; simplifying assumptions relating to economic model structure; and estimation of some parameters are documented and justified. The rarity of the conditions made estimation of longer-term maternal and infant costs and quality-adjusted life-years challenging, resulting in likely under-estimation of healthcare costs. Conclusions: With standardisation and training, first-trimester ultrasound screening for fetal anomalies is clinically effective with over 90% detection for eight major conditions and low false-positive rates. Decision uncertainty around implementation is low and a prospective study would not be an efficient investment. Adding first-trimester anomaly screening to the current screening likely represents a cost-effective use of resources and is acceptable to parents. Future work: Focus on developing an implementation framework to modify the current United Kingdom Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018111781 and CRD42018112434. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/19/10) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 29, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
With proper clinical training, the first-trimester ultrasound scan proves both clinically and cost-effective for diagnosing major fetal structural anomalies, especially when using specific standardized protocols.
“In fact, results from recent studies showed that with proper clinical training, the first-trimester ultrasound scan proves both clinically and cost-effective for diagnosing major fetal structural anomalies [32,33], especially when using specific standardized protocols [34].”
From First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines (2026) · cites this paper as [32]
Cites
The course of anxiety and depression through pregnancy and the postpartum in a community sample
Heron, J., O'Connor, T. G., Evans, J., Golding, J., & Glover, V. (2004) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2003.08.004 · Cited by 1,151 · see citing works
Stillbirths: economic and psychosocial consequences
Heazell, A. E. P., Siassakos, D., Blencowe, H., Burden, C., Bhutta, Z. A., Cacciatore, J., Dang, N., Das, J., Flenady, V., Gold, K. J., et al. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00836-3 · Cited by 792 · see citing works
Salameh, J.-P., Bossuyt, P. M., McGrath, T. A., Thombs, B. D., Hyde, C. J., Macaskill, P., Deeks, J. J., Leeflang, M., Korevaar, D. A., Whiting, P., et al. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m2632 · Cited by 719 · see citing works
<scp>ISUOG</scp> Practice Guidelines: performance of first‐trimester fetal ultrasound scan
(2013) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.12342 · Cited by 621 · see citing works
Self-citationBoyd, P., 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.x · Cited by 335 · see citing works
Holland, B. J., Myers, J. A., & Woods, C. R. (2015) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.14882 · Cited by 286 · see citing works
Megacystis at 10–14 weeks of gestation: Chromosomal defects and outcome according to bladder length
Liao, A. W., Sebire, N. J., Geerts, L., Cicero, S., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2003) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.81 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Self-citationMeert, K. L., Shear, K., Newth, C. J. L., Harrison, R., Berger, J., Zimmerman, J., Anand, K. J. S., Carcillo, J., Donaldson, A. E., Dean, J. M., et al. (2011) · Journal of Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1089/jpm.2010.0291 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Exploring Parental Grief: Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Measures
Arnold, J., Gemma, P. B., & Cushman, L. F. (2005) · Archives of Psychiatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2005.07.008 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
The 11–13-week scan: diagnosis and outcome of holoprosencephaly, exomphalos and megacystis
Kagan, K. O., Staboulidou, I., Syngelaki, A., Cruz, J., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2010) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.7646 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Sepulveda, W., & Wong, A. E. (2013) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.4235 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
De Robertis, V., Rembouskos, G., Fanelli, T., Volpe, G., Muto, B., & Volpe, P. (2017) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.5067 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines
Boureka, E., Tsakiridis, I., Michos, G., Liberis, A., Giouleka, S., Mamopoulos, A., Kalogiannidis, I., & Dagklis, T. (2026) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics16111695
- Authors
- Karim, J. N., Campbell, H., Pandya, P., Wilson, E. C. F., Alfirevic, Z., Chudleigh, T., Duff, E., Fisher, J., Goodman, H., Hinton, L., Ioannou, C., Juszczak, E., Linsell, L., Longworth, H. L., Nicolaides, K. H., Rhodes, A., Smith, G., Thilaganathan, B., Thornton, J., Yaz, G., Rivero-Arias, O., & Papageorghiou, A. T.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Exeter University, Exeter, UK
- Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- National Childbirth Trust (GB)
- Antenatal Results and Choices, London, UK
- Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- Liverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- King's College Hospital (GB)
- Tiny Tickers, London, UK
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- ORCID
- Venue
- Health Technology Assessment
- Published
- 2025-05
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 1-250
- ISSN
- 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
- 2046-4924
- PMC
- PMC12146947
- OpenAlex
- W4410953877
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 1.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Health Technology Assessment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (acceptedVersion)
- Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Health Technology Assessment programme (17/19/10)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
- Keywords
- SCAN, fetal anomaly screening, prenatal ultrasound, diagnostic accuracy, cost-effectiveness, congenital malformations, value of information analysis, decision-analytic model, National Health Service
- MeSH terms
- Congenital Abnormalities, Adult, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Prospective Studies, State Medicine, 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