ArticlePLoS medicine2025
Impact of first-trimester ultrasound on early detection of major fetal anomalies: Nationwide population-based study of over 1 million pregnancies.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2025. 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.
- 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
- Temporal trends and maternal factors associated with congenital anomalies among live births in São Paulo, Brazil: a population-based study, 2015-2023.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMajor fetal anomalies are an important cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. While routine second-trimester ultrasound screening around 20 weeks is the current standard, advances in imaging have enabled earlier anatomical assessment in the first trimester. Despite increasing practice of early screening in England, there is no national policy recommending first-trimester anatomical evaluation, and little is known about its impact on detection rates at population level. Our aim was to examine if different policies of fetal anatomical ultrasound practice have an impact on earlier diagnosis of major fetal anomalies. METHODS AND
findingsWe conducted a nationwide, population-based study linking data from a national survey of first-trimester ultrasound protocols in all NHS maternity units in England with congenital anomaly registration data from the National Congenital Anomaly and Rare Disease Registration Service (NCARDRS) for pregnancies between April 2017 and March 2019. NHS trusts were classified into four protocol groups: no anatomical assessment, basic, advanced, and extended anatomical protocols. We evaluated the proportion of 14 predefined major congenital anomalies detected prior to 16 weeks' gestation across these groups. A total of 1,030,224 pregnancies were included from 110 NHS trusts (84% response rate), with 5,895 fetuses affected by one of the anomalies of interest. First-trimester anatomical assessment was routinely conducted in 75% of trusts, though the scope varied. Overall, 32.7% (95% CI 31.5-33.9) of anomalies were detected before 16 weeks, with detection rates increasing stepwise by protocol detail: 27.7% (95% CI 25.4-30.0) in trusts with no protocol to 40.4% (95% CI 37.3-43.4) in those with extended protocols (p < 0.0001 for trend). Conditions such as acrania, exomphalos, and gastroschisis were commonly detected early regardless of protocol, whereas for anomalies such as spina bifida, limb reduction defects, and major cardiac malformations, detection was significantly higher in centers employing detailed first-trimester anatomical protocols. Due to data access restrictions and confidentiality considerations, analyses were conducted at the level of protocol group rather than individual hospitals. Hospital-level characteristics, including sonographer expertise and patient population risk, could not be adjusted for and may act as confounders.
conclusionsMore detailed first-trimester anatomical screening protocols are associated with significantly higher early detection rates of major fetal anomalies. While current practices vary considerably across England, this study provides population-level evidence suggesting that systematic first-trimester screening could improve the timeliness of anomaly detection. These findings support the consideration of standardized national guidance to reduce inequity and enhance prenatal care.
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.