Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41289226›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2025

Impact of first-trimester ultrasound on early detection of major fetal anomalies: Nationwide population-based study of over 1 million pregnancies.

Jehan N Karim, Jennifer M Broughan, Nicholas Aldridge, Pranav Pandya, Annette McHugh, Aris T Papageorghiou, ACCEPTS study group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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
  3. 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

7 authors.

Jehan N KarimNuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jennifer M BroughanNational Congenital Anomaly and Rare Disease Registration Service (NCARDRS), NHS England, Redditch, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4450-2147
Nicholas AldridgeNational Congenital Anomaly and Rare Disease Registration Service (NCARDRS), NHS England, Redditch, United Kingdom.
Pranav PandyaNHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme, NHS England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6462-6905
Annette McHughNHS Fetal Anomaly Screening Programme, NHS England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4763-0666
Aris T PapageorghiouNuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8143-2232
ACCEPTS study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Congenital AbnormalitiesPregnancy Trimester, FirstUltrasonography, PrenatalAdultEarly DiagnosisEnglandFemaleHumansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID41289226
PMCPMC12646414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.