Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38721874›Full record

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.

Marieke Fj Buijtendijk, Bo B Bet, Mariska Mg Leeflang, Harsha Shah, Tom Reuvekamp, Timothy Goring, Daniel Docter, Melanie Gmm Timmerman, Yousif Dawood, Malou A Lugthart and 5 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Spontaneous Mid-Gestational Uterine Rupture in a Non-Scarred Uterus.International medical case reports journal · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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 · 2025
    Observational
  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

15 authors.

Marieke Fj BuijtendijkDepartment of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Bo B BetAmsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Mariska Mg LeeflangDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Harsha ShahDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Tom ReuvekampDepartment of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Timothy GoringDepartment of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Daniel DocterDepartment of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Melanie Gmm TimmermanDepartment of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Yousif DawoodDepartment of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Malou A LugthartAmsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Bente BerendsDepartment of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Jacqueline LimpensMedical Library, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Eva PajkrtAmsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Maurice Jb van den HoffDepartment of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Bernadette S de BakkerDepartment of Medical Biology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Pregnancy Trimester, FirstPregnancy Trimester, SecondUltrasonography, PrenatalBiasCongenital AbnormalitiesFemaleHumansPregnancySensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID38721874
PMCPMC11079979

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.