Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34369613›Full record

SynthesisUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2022

First-trimester ultrasound detection of fetal heart anomalies: systematic review and meta-analysis.

J N Karim, E Bradburn, N Roberts, A T Papageorghiou, ACCEPTS study

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
14.0field-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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 142 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Practical Approach to Incorporating the Detailed First Trimester Ultrasound Examination Into Clinical Practice.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Combining Detailed Fetal Anatomy Scanning in the NT Window Versus Early Second Trimester Scanning at 14-16 Weeks: A Non-Inferiority Study.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J N KarimNuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
E BradburnNuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
N RobertsBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
A T PapageorghiouNuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8143-2232
ACCEPTS study
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health Research National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Heal
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound at 11-14 weeks' gestation in the detection of fetal cardiac abnormalities and to evaluate factors that impact the detection rate.

methodsThis was a systematic review of studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in the detection of fetal cardiac anomalies at 11-14 weeks' gestation, performed by two independent reviewers. An electronic search of four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection and The Cochrane Library) was conducted for studies published between January 1998 and July 2020. Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating pregnancies at any prior level of risk and in any healthcare setting were eligible for inclusion. The reference standard used was the detection of a cardiac abnormality on postnatal or postmortem examination. Data were extracted from the included studies to populate 2 × 2 tables. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model in order to determine the performance of first-trimester ultrasound in the detection of major cardiac abnormalities overall and of individual types of cardiac abnormality. Data were analyzed separately for high-risk and non-high-risk populations. Preplanned secondary analyses were conducted in order to assess factors that may impact screening performance, including the imaging protocol used for cardiac assessment (including the use of color-flow Doppler), ultrasound modality, year of publication and the index of sonographer suspicion at the time of the scan. Risk of bias and quality assessment were undertaken for all included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.

resultsThe electronic search yielded 4108 citations. Following review of titles and abstracts, 223 publications underwent full-text review, of which 63 studies, reporting on 328 262 fetuses, were selected for inclusion in the meta-analysis. In the non-high-risk population (45 studies, 306 872 fetuses), 1445 major cardiac anomalies were identified (prevalence, 0.41% (95% CI, 0.39-0.43%)). Of these, 767 were detected on first-trimester ultrasound examination of the heart and 678 were not detected. First-trimester ultrasound had a pooled sensitivity of 55.80% (95% CI, 45.87-65.50%), specificity of 99.98% (95% CI, 99.97-99.99%) and positive predictive value of 94.85% (95% CI, 91.63-97.32%) in the non-high-risk population. The cases diagnosed in the first trimester represented 63.67% (95% CI, 54.35-72.49%) of all antenatally diagnosed major cardiac abnormalities in the non-high-risk population. In the high-risk population (18 studies, 21 390 fetuses), 480 major cardiac anomalies were identified (prevalence, 1.36% (95% CI, 1.20-1.52%)). Of these, 338 were detected on first-trimester ultrasound examination and 142 were not detected. First-trimester ultrasound had a pooled sensitivity of 67.74% (95% CI, 55.25-79.06%), specificity of 99.75% (95% CI, 99.47-99.92%) and positive predictive value of 94.22% (95% CI, 90.22-97.22%) in the high-risk population. The cases diagnosed in the first trimester represented 79.86% (95% CI, 69.89-88.25%) of all antenatally diagnosed major cardiac abnormalities in the high-risk population. The imaging protocol used for examination was found to have an important impact on screening performance in both populations (P < 0.0001), with a significantly higher detection rate observed in studies using at least one outflow-tract view or color-flow Doppler imaging (both P < 0.0001). Different types of cardiac anomaly were not equally amenable to detection on first-trimester ultrasound.

conclusionsFirst-trimester ultrasound examination of the fetal heart allows identification of over half of fetuses affected by major cardiac pathology. Future first-trimester screening programs should follow structured anatomical assessment protocols and consider the introduction of outflow-tract views and color-flow Doppler imaging, as this would improve detection rates of fetal cardiac pathology. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Pregnancy Trimester, FirstFemaleFetal DiseasesFetal HeartGestational AgeHeart Defects, CongenitalHumansPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesUltrasonography, Prenatalcardiac abnormalitycongenital heart anomalyfirst trimesterpositive predictive valueriskscreeningsensitivityspecificityultrasound

Identifiers

PMID34369613
PMCPMC9305869
OpenAlexW3190066797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.