Frequency and Importance of Incomplete Screening Fetal Anatomic Sonography in Pregnancy
Abstract
Objectives: To determine (1) how often routine screening fetal anatomic sonography fails to completely visualize fetal anatomy; (2) the proportion of women with incomplete ultrasound examinations who are recommended for repeat screening and then undergo repeat sonography; and (3) how often abnormal fetal anatomy is detected on repeat sonography. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a high‐volume academic obstetric ultrasound center. Participants were 16,300 women at 17 through 21 weeks' gestation with a singleton pregnancy presenting for screening anatomic sonography between January 2009 and December 2013. Main outcome measures were (1) incomplete visualization of anatomy at initial screening sonography; (2) among women with incomplete but otherwise normal initial screening ultrasound examinations, recommendation for and performance of repeat sonography; and (3) among women undergoing repeat sonography, discovery of abnormal fetal anatomy within anatomic components that were previously incompletely visualized. Results: The mean maternal age ± SD was 30.8 ± 6.3 years, and the mean gestational age was 18.8 ± 1.0 weeks. Among 16,300 initial screening ultrasound examinations, 2157 (13.2%) had incomplete visualization of fetal anatomy. Of those women eligible for follow‐up, 91.5% were recommended for repeat screening, of whom 92.8% had a subsequent examination. Of 1560 repeat screening ultrasound examinations, 8 (0.5%) showed an abnormality in the components of anatomy that were previously visualized incompletely. Conclusions: In this large single‐center study, incomplete visualization was common in screening fetal anatomic ultrasound examinations. Recommendations for repeat imaging were nearly universal, but abnormal fetal anatomy was infrequently discovered on repeat screening.
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?
When an examination cannot be performed completely in accordance with adopted guidelines, abnormalities are eventually detected in 0.5-5% of such cases.
“as abnormalities are eventually detected in 0.5-5% of such cases 11,12 .”
From <scp>ISUOG</scp> Practice Guidelines (updated): performance of the routine mid‐trimester fetal ultrasound scan (2022) · cites this paper as [11]
Cites
Crane, J. P., LeFevre, M. L., Winborn, R. C., Evans, J. K., Ewigman, B., Bain, R. P., FRIGOLETTO, F. D., & McNellis, D. (1994) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(94)70040-0 · Cited by 387 · see citing works
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 101: Ultrasonography in Pregnancy
(2009) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e31819930b0 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
Levi, S. (2002) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.306 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Reddy, U. M., Abuhamad, A., Levine, D., & Saade, G. R. (2014) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000000245 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Suboptimal Second-Trimester Ultrasonographic Visualization of the Fetal Heart in Obese Women
Hendler, I., Blackwell, S. C., Bujold, E., Treadwell, M. C., Mittal, P., Sokol, R. J., & Sorokin, Y. (2005) · Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.7863/jum.2005.24.9.1205 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Fetal anatomic evaluation in the overweight and obese gravida
Thornburg, L. L., Miles, K., Ho, M., & Pressman, E. K. (2009) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.6401 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Consensus Report on the Detailed Fetal Anatomic Ultrasound Examination
Wax, J. R., MINKOFF, H. L., Johnson, A., Coleman, B. G., Levine, D., Helfgott, A. W., O’Keeffe, D. F., Henningsen, C. G., & Benson, C. B. (2014) · Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.7863/ultra.33.2.189 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Schwärzler, P., Sénat, M., Holden, D. P., Bernard, J. P., Masroor, T., & Ville, Y. G. (1999) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.1999.14020092.x · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Routine ultrasound screening in diabetic pregnancies
Wong, S. F., Chan, F.-Y., Cincotta, R., Oats, J. J. N., & McIntyre, D. H. (2002) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00560.x · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Incidence of Fetal Anomalies After Incomplete Anatomic Surveys Between 16 and 22 Weeks
Waller, S. A., O’Connell, K., Carter, A., Gravett, M. G., Dighe, M., Richardson, M. L., & Dubinsky, T. J. (2013) · Ultrasound Quarterly · doi:10.1097/ruq.0b013e31829a6ad3 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
What Is the Rate of Incomplete Fetal Anatomic Surveys During a Second‐Trimester Scan?
Padula, F., Gulino, F. A., Capriglione, S., Giorlandino, M., Cignini, P., Mastrandrea, M. L., D’Emidio, L., & Giorlandino, C. (2015) · Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.7863/ultra.15.01029 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 12 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Salomon, L. J., Alfirevic, Z., Berghella, V., Bilardo, C. M., Chalouhi, G. E., Da Silva Costa, F., Hernandez‐Andrade, E., Malinger, G., Munoz, H., Paladini, D., et al. (2022) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.24888 · Cited by 436 · see citing works
Pontones, C. A., Titzmann, A., Huebner, H., Danzberger, N., Ruebner, M., Häberle, L., Eskofier, B. M., Nissen, M., Kehl, S., Faschingbauer, F., et al. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm12134224 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Utility of follow-up standard sonography for fetal anomaly detection
Byrne, J. J., Morgan, J. L., Twickler, D. M., McIntire, D. D., & Dashe, J. S. (2020) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.001 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: Impact of contemporary management strategies on perinatal outcomes
Lee, H., Dickinson, J. E., Tan, J. K., Nembhard, W. N., & Bower, C. I. (2018) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.5376 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Indeterminate Prenatal Ultrasounds and Maternal Anxiety: A Prospective Cohort Study
Gross, M. S., Ju, H., Osborne, L. M., Jelin, E. B., Sekar, P., & Jelin, A. C. (2021) · Maternal and Child Health Journal · doi:10.1007/s10995-020-03042-x · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Guidance for fetal cardiac imaging in patients with degraded acoustic windows
Sklansky, M., Afshar, Y., Anton, T., DeVore, G. R., Platt, L. D., & Satou, G. M. (2022) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.24872 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Hennig, C. L., Childs, J. T., Aziz, A., & Quinton, A. E. (2019) · Sonography · doi:10.1002/sono.12202 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Detailed Fetal Anatomic Ultrasound Examination
Fratto, V. M., Chang, A., Anton, T., Sun, H. Y., Lamale‐Smith, L. M., & Pretorius, D. H. (2018) · Ultrasound Quarterly · doi:10.1097/ruq.0000000000000392 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Lendrum, T. L., Shaffer, R. K., & Heyborne, K. (2022) · American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM · doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100567 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Improving fetal congenital heart disease screening using a checklist‐based approach
Janicki, M. B., Fernandez, C. G., Wakefield, D. B., Shepherd, J. P., & Figueroa, R. (2019) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.5581 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Chaichanalap, R., & Hanprasertpong, T. (2021) · The Ultrasound Journal · doi:10.1186/s13089-021-00238-2 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Henkel, A., Beshar, I., Cahill, E. P., Blumenfeld, Y. J., Chueh, J. T., & Shaw, K. A. (2022) · American Journal of Perinatology · doi:10.1055/s-0042-1749138 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Mapping the research on self-performed ultrasound: A scoping review
Muta, M., Abe‐Doi, M., Tamai, N., Itabashi, M., & Nakagami, G. (2025) · WFUMB Ultrasound Open · doi:10.1016/j.wfumbo.2025.100084 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Indeterminate Prenatal Ultrasounds and Maternal Anxiety: A Prospective Cohort StudyPreprint
Gross, M. S., Ju, H., Osborne, L. M., Jelin, E. B., Sekar, P., & Jelin, A. C. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3391002
Adipositas und Schwangerschaftsrisiken
Weichert, J. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-61906-3_6
Combs, C. A., Balogun, O. A., Vanderhoeven, J., & Amara, S. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm14103356
The Completion Rate of the Mid‐Trimester Fetal Anatomy Scan: A Clinical Audit
Palmer, M., Quinton, A. E., & Alphonse, J. (2026) · Sonography · doi:10.1002/sono.70079
Understanding the Concept of Self‐Performed Ultrasound: A Scoping Review
Do, V., Chau, A., Arruzza, E. S., & Parange, N. (2026) · Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine · doi:10.1002/jum.70446
- Authors
- Silvestri, M. T., Pettker, C. M., Raney, J. H., Xu, X., & Ross, J. S.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-11-07
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2665-2673
- ISSN
- 0278-4297 (ISSN-L)
- 1550-9613
- OpenAlex
- W2554621934
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 1.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- prenatal screening, singleton pregnancy
- MeSH terms
- Congenital Abnormalities, Adult, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Retrospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies, 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
