Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28295159›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017

First and second trimester serum tests with and without first trimester ultrasound tests for Down's syndrome screening.

S Kate Alldred, Yemisi Takwoingi, Boliang Guo, Mary Pennant, Jonathan J Deeks, James P Neilson, Zarko Alfirevic

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
199.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 528 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Noninvasive prenatal testing: an overview.Australian prescriber · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Non-invasive prenatal screening: A 20-year experience in Italy.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2019
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

S Kate AlldredDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, The University of Liverpool, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK, L8 7SS.
Yemisi TakwoingiInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK, B15 2TT.
Boliang GuoSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, CLAHRC, C floor, IHM, Jubilee Campus, University of Nottingham, Triumph Road, Nottingham, East Midlands, UK, NG7 2TU.
Mary PennantPublic Health Directorate, Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridge, UK.
Jonathan J DeeksInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK, B15 2TT.
James P NeilsonThe University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Zarko AlfirevicDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, The University of Liverpool, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK, L8 7SS.
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBCambridgeshire County Council · GBLiverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDown's syndrome occurs when a person has three copies of chromosome 21 (or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome) rather than two. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability. Non-invasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing.  Before agreeing to screening tests, parents need to be fully informed about the risks, benefits and possible consequences of such a test. This includes subsequent choices for further tests they may face, and the implications of both false positive (i.e. invasive diagnostic testing, and the possibility that a miscarried fetus may be chromosomally normal) and false negative screening tests (i.e. a fetus with Down's syndrome will be missed). The decisions that may be faced by expectant parents inevitably engender a high level of anxiety at all stages of the screening process, and the outcomes of screening can be associated with considerable physical and psychological morbidity. No screening test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.

objectivesTo estimate and compare the accuracy of first and second trimester serum markers with and without first trimester ultrasound markers for the detection of Down's syndrome in the antenatal period, as combinations of markers. SEARCH

methodsWe conducted a sensitive and comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), Embase (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (the Cochrane Library 25 August 2011), MEDION (25 August 2011), the Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine (25 August 2011), the National Research Register (Archived 2007), and Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (25 August 2011). We did not apply a diagnostic test search filter. We did forward citation searching in ISI citation indices, Google Scholar and PubMed 'related articles'. We also searched reference lists of retrieved articles SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies evaluating tests of combining first and second trimester maternal serum markers in women up to 24 weeks of gestation for Down's syndrome, with or without first trimester ultrasound markers, compared with a reference standard, either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted as test positive/test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. We investigated the impact of maternal age on test performance in subgroup analyses. MAIN

resultsTwenty-two studies (reported in 25 publications) involving 228,615 pregnancies (including 1067 with Down's syndrome) were included. Studies were generally high quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high risk pregnancies. Ten studies made direct comparisons between tests. Thirty-two different test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of eight different tests and maternal age; first trimester nuchal translucency (NT) and the serum markers AFP, uE3, total hCG, free βhCG, Inhibin A, PAPP-A and ADAM 12. We looked at tests combining first and second trimester markers with or without ultrasound as complete tests, and we also examined stepwise and contingent strategies.Meta-analysis of the six most frequently evaluated test combinations showed that a test strategy involving maternal age and a combination of first trimester NT and PAPP-A, and second trimester total hCG, uE3, AFP and Inhibin A significantly outperformed other test combinations that involved only one serum marker or NT in the first trimester, detecting about nine out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate. However, the evidence was limited in terms of the number of studies evaluating this strategy, and we therefore cannot recommend one single screening strategy. AUTHORS'

conclusionsTests involving first trimester ultrasound with first and second trimester serum markers in combination with maternal age are significantly better than those without ultrasound, or those evaluating first trimester ultrasound in combination with second trimester serum markers, without first trimester serum markers. We cannot make recommendations about a specific strategy on the basis of the small number of studies available.

Indexed as

Nuchal Translucency Measurementalpha-FetoproteinsBiomarkersChorionic GonadotropinDown SyndromeEstriolFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansInhibinsMaternal AgePregnancyPregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein-APregnancy Trimester, FirstPregnancy Trimester, SecondSensitivity and Specificityalpha-FetoproteinsBiomarkersChorionic GonadotropinEstriolinhibin AInhibinsPregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein-A

Identifiers

PMID28295159
PMCPMC6464364
OpenAlexW2641583777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.