• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

11-14 周超声检查胎儿非心脏异常的检测:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Detection of non-cardiac fetal abnormalities on ultrasound at 11-14 weeks: systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Nuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, Jesus College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Department of Maternal and Child Health and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

出版信息

Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Jul;64(1):15-27. doi: 10.1002/uog.27649.

DOI:10.1002/uog.27649
PMID:38547384
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of two-dimensional ultrasound at 11-14 weeks' gestation as a screening test for individual fetal anomalies and to identify factors impacting on screening performance.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis that was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018111781). MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of screening for 16 predefined, non-cardiac, congenital anomalies considered to be of interest to the early anomaly scan. We included prospective and retrospective studies from any healthcare setting conducted in low-risk, mixed-risk and unselected populations. The reference standard was the detection of an anomaly on postnatal or postmortem examination. Data were extracted to populate 2 × 2 tables and a random-effects model was used to determine the diagnostic accuracy of screening for the predefined anomalies (individually and as a composite). Secondary analyses were performed to determine the impact on detection rates of imaging protocol, type of ultrasound modality, publication year and index of sonographer suspicion at the time of scanning. Post-hoc secondary analysis was conducted to assess performance among studies published during or after 2010. Risk of bias assessment and quality assessment were undertaken for included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.

RESULTS

From 5684 citations, 202 papers underwent full-text review, resulting in the inclusion of 52 studies comprising 527 837 fetuses, of which 2399 were affected by one or more of the 16 predefined anomalies. Individual anomalies were not equally amenable to detection on first-trimester ultrasound: a high (> 80%) detection rate was reported for severe conditions, including acrania (98%), gastroschisis (96%), exomphalos (95%) and holoprosencephaly (88%); the detection rate was lower for open spina bifida (69%), lower urinary tract obstruction (66%), lethal skeletal dysplasias (57%) and limb-reduction defects (50%); and the detection rate was below 50% for facial clefts (43%), polydactyly (40%) and congenital diaphragmatic hernia (38%). Conditions with a low (< 30%) detection rate included bilateral renal agenesis (25%), closed spina bifida (21%), isolated cleft lip (14%) and talipes (11%). Specificity was > 99% for all anomalies. Secondary analysis showed that detection improved with advancing publication year, and that the use of imaging protocols had a statistically significant impact on screening performance (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The accurate detection of congenital anomalies using first-trimester ultrasound is feasible, although detection rates and false-positive rates depend on the type of anomaly. The use of a standardized protocol allows for diagnostic performance to be maximized, particularly for the detection of spina bifida, facial clefts and limb-reduction defects. Highlighting the types of anomalies amenable to diagnosis and determining factors enhancing screening performance can support the development of first-trimester anomaly screening programs. © 2024 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

摘要

目的

评估 11-14 孕周二维超声作为个体胎儿畸形筛查试验的诊断准确性,并确定影响筛查性能的因素。

方法

这是一项系统评价和荟萃分析,由 PROSPERO(CRD42018111781)开发并注册。检索 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Web of Science 核心合集和 Cochrane 图书馆,以评估评估 16 种预先定义的非心脏先天性异常筛查的诊断准确性的研究,这些异常被认为与早期异常扫描有关。我们纳入了来自任何医疗保健环境的前瞻性和回顾性研究,包括低风险、混合风险和未选择人群。参考标准是在产后或死后检查中发现异常。提取数据以填充 2×2 表,并使用随机效应模型确定对预先定义的异常(单独和作为复合)的筛查的诊断准确性。进行了二次分析,以确定成像方案、超声模式类型、发布年份以及超声医师在扫描时的怀疑指数对检出率的影响。进行了事后二次分析,以评估 2010 年或之后发表的研究中的性能。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估工具 2 对纳入的研究进行了偏倚风险评估和质量评估。

结果

从 5684 条引用中,202 篇论文进行了全文审查,最终纳入了 52 项研究,共纳入了 527837 例胎儿,其中 2399 例受 16 种预先定义的异常之一或多种影响。个别异常在孕早期超声检查中不易被发现:严重疾病(包括无脑畸形、腹裂、脐膨出和前脑无裂畸形)的检出率较高(>80%);开放性脊柱裂(69%)、下尿路梗阻(66%)、致死性骨骼发育不良(57%)和肢体减少缺陷(50%)的检出率较低;面裂(43%)、多指(40%)和先天性膈疝(38%)的检出率低于 50%。检出率较低的疾病包括双侧肾发育不全(25%)、闭合性脊柱裂(21%)、单纯唇裂(14%)和马蹄内翻足(11%)。所有异常的特异性均>99%。二次分析表明,随着出版年份的推进,检测得到改善,并且成像方案的使用对筛查性能有统计学意义的影响(P<0.0001)。

结论

使用孕早期超声准确检测先天性异常是可行的,尽管检出率和假阳性率取决于异常的类型。使用标准化方案可以最大限度地提高诊断性能,特别是对脊柱裂、面裂和肢体减少缺陷的检测。突出可诊断的异常类型并确定增强筛查性能的因素可以支持孕早期异常筛查计划的制定。© 2024 作者。John Wiley & Sons Ltd 出版并代表国际超声协会在妇产科中的超声。

相似文献

1
Detection of non-cardiac fetal abnormalities on ultrasound at 11-14 weeks: systematic review and meta-analysis.11-14 周超声检查胎儿非心脏异常的检测:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Jul;64(1):15-27. doi: 10.1002/uog.27649.
2
First-trimester ultrasound detection of fetal heart anomalies: systematic review and meta-analysis.早孕期胎儿心脏畸形的超声检测:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Jan;59(1):11-25. doi: 10.1002/uog.23740.
3
Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound screening for fetal structural abnormalities during the first and second trimester of pregnancy in low-risk and unselected populations.超声筛查在低危和非选择性人群妊娠早、中期胎儿结构异常中的诊断准确性。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 May 9;5(5):CD014715. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014715.pub2.
4
Systematic review of first-trimester ultrasound screening for detection of fetal structural anomalies and factors that affect screening performance.系统评价早孕期超声筛查检测胎儿结构畸形及影响筛查效能的因素。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Oct;50(4):429-441. doi: 10.1002/uog.17246. Epub 2017 Sep 7.
5
Diagnosis of fetal non-chromosomal abnormalities on routine ultrasound examination at 11-13 weeks' gestation.在 11-13 孕周的常规超声检查中诊断胎儿非染色体异常。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Oct;54(4):468-476. doi: 10.1002/uog.20844.
6
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
7
Role of magnetic resonance imaging in fetuses with mild or moderate ventriculomegaly in the era of fetal neurosonography: systematic review and meta-analysis.磁共振成像在胎儿神经超声时代轻度或中度脑室扩张胎儿中的作用:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Aug;54(2):164-171. doi: 10.1002/uog.20197. Epub 2019 Jul 11.
8
Prenatal detection of congenital heart disease at 12-13 gestational weeks: detailed analysis of false-negative cases.12-13 孕周胎儿先天性心脏病产前筛查的漏诊分析
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023 May;61(5):577-586. doi: 10.1002/uog.26094. Epub 2023 Apr 7.
9
Introduction of a nationwide first-trimester anomaly scan in the Dutch national screening program.荷兰国家筛查计划中引入全国性孕早期异常扫描。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2025 Apr;232(4):396.e1-396.e19. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.07.026. Epub 2024 Jul 25.
10
Challenges in the diagnosis of fetal non-chromosomal abnormalities at 11-13 weeks.11-13 孕周胎儿非染色体异常诊断的难点。
Prenat Diagn. 2011 Jan;31(1):90-102. doi: 10.1002/pd.2642.

引用本文的文献

1
First case report of a unique combination of congenital limb and skeletal anomalies mimicking VACTERL and Gollop-Wolfgang syndromes.首例先天性肢体与骨骼异常独特组合病例报告,类似VACTERL综合征和戈洛普-沃尔夫冈综合征。
Int J Surg Case Rep. 2025 Sep;134:111747. doi: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2025.111747. Epub 2025 Aug 5.
2
Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Antenatal Screening for Major Structural Anomalies During the First Trimester of Pregnancy: A Decision Model.评估孕早期主要结构异常产前筛查的成本效益:一种决策模型
BJOG. 2025 Apr;132(5):638-647. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.18053. Epub 2025 Jan 21.