ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2021
Increased nuchal translucency before 11 weeks of gestation: Reason for referral?
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Association Between Fetal Nuchal Translucency Measurements and Pregnancy Outcomes.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- The impact of increased nuchal translucency on pregnancy outcomes: A retrospective cohort study in Qatar.Qatar medical journal · 2025Article
- Increased nuchal translucency before 11 weeks of gestation: Reason for referral?Prenatal diagnosis · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn this era of non-invasive-prenatal testing (NIPT), when dating scans are usually performed around 10 weeks of gestation, an increased NT before the official established timeframe (CRL between 45 and 84 mm) may be encountered. Information on management of these pregnancies is limited. Therefore, we evaluated the relationship between an early increased NT and adverse pregnancy outcome. Secondary, we evaluated the rate of chromosomal anomalies that might have been missed in first trimester should solely NIPT be performed as first-tier test, and the rate of adverse pregnancy outcome if NT normalizes before 14 weeks.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study that included all pregnancies between January 1, 2007 and June 1, 2020 in Amsterdam UMC locations AMC and VUmc. We included fetuses with a crown-rump length (CRL) < 45 mm (∼11 weeks) and a nuchal translucency (NT) measurement ≥2.5 mm. Fetuses referred with an early increased NT and a major fetal anomaly at the dating scan were excluded, as were cases of parents with a family history of monogenetic disease(s) or recognized carriers of a balanced translocation.
resultsWe included 120 fetuses of which 66.7% (80/120) had an adverse pregnancy outcome. Congenital anomalies were present in 56.7% (68/120), 45.8% (55/120) had a chromosomal anomaly. The prevalence of congenital anomalies was 30.3% in fetuses with NT 2.5-3.4 mm compared to 66.7% with NT ≥ 3.5 mm (p < 0.001). 16.7% (20/120) had a chromosomal anomaly that might have been missed by conventional NIPT in first trimester. We found an adverse pregnancy outcome of 24% in the group with a normalized NT compared to 78.1% in the group with a persistently increased NT (p < 0.001).
conclusionAn early increased NT should make the sonographer alert. In this selected cohort, an early increased NT was associated with a high probability of having an adverse pregnancy outcome. Regardless of CRL, we deem that an early increased NT ≥ 3.5 mm warrants referral to a Fetal Medicine Unit for an extensive work-up. NT normalization seems favorable, but a prospective study should define the appropriate work-up for NT in the lower range (2.5-3.4 mm).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.