SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2024
Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound screening for fetal structural abnormalities during the first and second trimester of pregnancy in low-risk and unselected populations.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound screening for fetal structural abnormalities during the first and second trimester of pregnancy in low-risk and unselected populations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Complex Screening for Congenital Cardiovascular Malformations.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Early Detection of Major Fetal Structural Anomalies in the First Trimester: A Retrospective Single-Center Study in an Unselected Population.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of fetal anatomy in the first trimester on a national scale: screening and beyond.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026Article
- First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Caesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy in Early Gestation: A Scoping Review of Definitions and Diagnostic Approach.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) versus direct amniocentesis for screening of fetal chromosomal aneuploidies in Brazilian private health system.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Review
- AI-based quality control was associated with improved fetal ultrasound image quality in low-resource settings: a real-world multicenter study from West China.BMC medicine · 2026Observational
- Is first trimester screening an opportunity for early diagnosis of structural anomalies?: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2026Article
- Diagnosis of major cardiac defects through routine early pregnancy ultrasound examination.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Application of chromosomal microarray analysis for prenatal diagnosis in 315 ultrasonically abnormal fetuses.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Discrepancy between medical knowledge and clinical reasoning: evaluating large language models in prenatal diagnosis.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- The Evolution of Cephalocentesis in Contemporary Obstetric Practice: From Emergency Intervention to Planned Procedure.Fetal diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- The Application Value of Chromosome Microarray Analysis in Prenatal Diagnosis of Clinically Relevant Copy Number Variations in Fetuses.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Decoding structural birth defects through genomic landscapes: Innovative frameworks for diagnosis (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Spontaneous Mid-Gestational Uterine Rupture in a Non-Scarred Uterus.International medical case reports journal · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Fetal Medicine: A Pilot Feasibility Study.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Termination of pregnancy for medical indications: A 14-year analysis from a tertiary referral center.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Observational
- Association of relative expression of HSD11B-1 and HSD11B-2 with pregnancy status in sheep.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- The use of the detailed fetal anatomy ultrasound in the first and second trimesters.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrenatal ultrasound is widely used to screen for structural anomalies before birth. While this is traditionally done in the second trimester, there is an increasing use of first-trimester ultrasound for early detection of lethal and certain severe structural anomalies.
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in detecting fetal structural anomalies before 14 and 24 weeks' gestation in low-risk and unselected pregnant women and to compare the current two main prenatal screening approaches: a single second-trimester scan (single-stage screening) and a first- and second-trimester scan combined (two-stage screening) in terms of anomaly detection before 24 weeks' gestation. SEARCH
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science), Arts & Humanities Citation Index and Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science) from 1 January 1997 to 22 July 2022. We limited our search to studies published after 1997 and excluded animal studies, reviews and case reports. No further restrictions were applied. We also screened reference lists and citing articles of each of the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included low-risk or unselected pregnant women undergoing a first- and/or second-trimester fetal anomaly scan, conducted at 11 to 14 or 18 to 24 weeks' gestation, respectively. The reference standard was detection of anomalies at birth or postmortem. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook study selection, quality assessment (QUADAS-2), data extraction and evaluation of the certainty of evidence (GRADE approach). We used univariate random-effects logistic regression models for the meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity. MAIN
resultsEighty-seven studies covering 7,057,859 fetuses (including 25,202 with structural anomalies) were included. No study was deemed low risk across all QUADAS-2 domains. Main methodological concerns included risk of bias in the reference standard domain and risk of partial verification. Applicability concerns were common in studies evaluating first-trimester scans and two-stage screening in terms of patient selection due to frequent recruitment from single tertiary centres without exclusion of referrals. We reported ultrasound accuracy for fetal structural anomalies overall, by severity, affected organ system and for 46 specific anomalies. Detection rates varied widely across categories, with the highest estimates of sensitivity for thoracic and abdominal wall anomalies and the lowest for gastrointestinal anomalies across all tests. The summary sensitivity of a first-trimester scan was 37.5% for detection of structural anomalies overall (95% confidence interval (CI) 31.1 to 44.3; low-certainty evidence) and 91.3% for lethal anomalies (95% CI 83.9 to 95.5; moderate-certainty evidence), with an overall specificity of 99.9% (95% CI 99.9 to 100; low-certainty evidence). Two-stage screening had a combined sensitivity of 83.8% (95% CI 74.7 to 90.1; low-certainty evidence), while single-stage screening had a sensitivity of 50.5% (95% CI 38.5 to 62.4; very low-certainty evidence). The specificity of two-stage screening was 99.9% (95% CI 99.7 to 100; low-certainty evidence) and for single-stage screening, it was 99.8% (95% CI 99.2 to 100; moderate-certainty evidence). Indirect comparisons suggested superiority of two-stage screening across all analyses regarding sensitivity, with no significant difference in specificity. However, the certainty of the evidence is very low due to the absence of direct comparisons. AUTHORS'
conclusionsA first-trimester scan has the potential to detect lethal and certain severe anomalies with high accuracy before 14 weeks' gestation, despite its limited overall sensitivity. Conversely, two-stage screening shows high accuracy in detecting most fetal structural anomalies before 24 weeks' gestation with high sensitivity and specificity. In a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 fetuses, the first-trimester scan is expected to correctly identify 113 out of 124 fetuses with lethal anomalies (91.3%) and 665 out of 1776 fetuses with any anomaly (37.5%). However, 79 false-positive diagnoses are anticipated among 98,224 fetuses (0.08%). Two-stage screening is expected to correctly identify 1448 out of 1776 cases of structural anomalies overall (83.8%), with 118 false positives (0.1%). In contrast, single-stage screening is expected to correctly identify 896 out of 1776 cases before 24 weeks' gestation (50.5%), with 205 false-positive diagnoses (0.2%). This represents a difference of 592 fewer correct identifications and 88 more false positives compared to two-stage screening. However, it is crucial to acknowledge the uncertainty surrounding the additional benefits of two-stage versus single-stage screening, as there are no studies directly comparing them. Moreover, the evidence supporting the accuracy of first-trimester ultrasound and two-stage screening approaches primarily originates from studies conducted in single tertiary care facilities, which restricts the generalisability of the results of this meta-analysis to the broader population.
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.