Cited by 5Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsCongenital Anomalies and Fetal SurgeryFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of detailed anomaly ultrasound screening in the first trimester: A mixed-methods study

Open access
Karim, Jehan N, Campbell, Helen, Pandya, Pranav, Wilson, Edward C F, Alfirevic, Zarko, Chudleigh, Trish, Duff, Elizabeth, Fisher, Jane +14 more·2025·Health Technology Assessment

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.3310/nltp7102

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
Venue
Health Technology Assessment
Published
2025-05
Volume
29
Issue
22
Pages
1-250
ISSN
  • 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
  • 2046-4924
OpenAlex
W4410953877
Cited by
5
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
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