ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2022
Timing of diagnosis of fetal structural abnormalities after the introduction of universal cell-free DNA in the absence of first-trimester anatomical screening.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dedicated First-Trimester Anomaly Scan in a National Prenatal Screening Program and Timing of Diagnosis: The Prospective IMITAS Cohort Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Observational
- Preferences of Pregnant Women and Healthcare Professionals on First-Trimester Ultrasound Screening for Fetal Anomalies: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Timing of diagnosis of fetal structural abnormalities after the introduction of universal cell-free DNA in the absence of first-trimester anatomical screening.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSince 2021, first-trimester anatomical screening (FTAS) is offered in the Netherlands alongside genome-wide cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Previously, only second-trimester anatomical screening (STAS) was offered. This study identifies structural abnormalities amenable to first-trimester diagnosis detected at/after STAS in the period following cfDNA implementation and preceding FTAS introduction.
methodsThis retrospective cohort includes 547 fetuses referred between 2017 and 2020 because of suspected structural abnormalities before/at/after STAS. Additional prenatal investigations and postnatal follow-up were searched. Abnormalities were classified into "always", "sometimes", and "never" detectable in the first-trimester based on a previously suggested classification.
resultsOf the 547 pregnancies, 13 (2.6%) received FTAS and 534 (97.6%) received a dating ultrasound and STAS. In 492/534 (92.1%) anomalies were confirmed; 66 (13.4%) belonged to the "always detectable" group in the first trimester, 303 (61.6%) to the "sometimes detectable", and 123 (25.0%) to the never detectable. Of the "always detectable" anomalies 29/66 (44%) were diagnosed during dating ultrasounds and 37 (56%) during STAS. The rate of termination of pregnancy for anomalies detected during FTAS and at/after STAS was 84.6% (n = 11/13) and 29.3% (n = 144/492) (p < 0.01).
conclusionWhen FTAS is not part of screening paradigms, most fetal anomalies remain undetected until the second trimester or later in pregnancy, including 56% of anomalies "always detectable" in the first trimester.
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.