Observational studyBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026
Dedicated First-Trimester Anomaly Scan in a National Prenatal Screening Program and Timing of Diagnosis: The Prospective IMITAS Cohort Study.
Observational study in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the diagnostic yield of a nationally implemented first-trimester anomaly scan (FTAS), compared to standard obstetric care with a second-trimester anomaly scan.
designProspective observational cohort study.
settingNationwide prenatal screening program in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Pregnant women referred for suspected fetal anomalies with subsequent abnormal diagnostic scans in 2021-2022.
methodsAll fetal diagnoses < 18 weeks' gestational age (GA) were registered: 8 months before (BEFORE) and 1 year after (AFTER) FTAS implementation. BEFORE-cohort: referrals after routine scans (e.g., dating scans). AFTER-cohort: all referrals, including FTAS. Corrections were made for missing referrals < 12 + 3 weeks in the AFTER-cohort. Time adjustment was made in the BEFORE-cohort. Anomalies were categorised as: First-Trimester Major Anomalies (FTMA), often detectable anomalies and other anomalies.
main outcome measuresNumber of fetal anomalies, time to final diagnosis, GA at termination of pregnancy (TOP).
resultsAbnormal diagnostic scans increased from 750 to 1261 (BEFORE vs. AFTER) with definitive diagnoses in 609 vs. 940. Time to diagnosis and GA at TOP in c-BEFORE were comparable to c-AFTER (11 vs. 13 days and GA 14 + 6 vs. 15 + 1, respectively). FTAS increased the detection of often detectable and other anomalies (53 vs. 124 and 248 vs. 474, respectively). FTMA slightly increased (308 vs. 342).
conclusionsFTAS substantially increases detection of fetal anomalies, primarily often detectable and other anomalies. Overall GA at diagnosis or TOP increased marginally, but some cases required an extended period of diagnostic evaluation.
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.