BMJ 2000;320:606-610 ( 4 March )

Papers

Six year survey of screening for Down's syndrome by maternal age and mid-trimester ultrasound scans

Editorial by Raeburn

David T Howe, consultant in fetomaternal medicine, a Robert Gornall, specialist registrar in obstetrics and gynaecology, a Diana Wellesley, associate specialist in clinical genetics, b Tracy Boyle, section head, prenatal diagnostics, c John Barber, deputy director, cytogenetics laboratory. c

a Wessex Maternal and Fetal Medicine Unit, Princess Anne Hospital, Southampton SO16 5YA, b Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, Princess Anne Hospital, Southampton, c Wessex Regional Genetics Laboratory, Salisbury District Hospital, Salisbury SP2 8BJ

Correspondence to: D Howe dth{at}soton.ac.uk

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of antenatal screening for Down's syndrome by maternal age and routine mid-pregnancy ultrasound scanning.
Design: Retrospective six year survey.
Setting: Maternity units of a district general hospital.
Subjects: Pregnant women booked for delivery in hospital between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 1998.
Main outcome measures: All cases of Down's syndrome occurring in district identified from regional congenital anomaly register and cytogenetic laboratory records. Women's case notes were examined to identify indication for karyotyping, gestation at diagnosis, and outcome of pregnancy.
Results: 31 259 deliveries occurred during study period, and 57 cases of Down's syndrome were identified, four in failed pregnancies and 53 in ongoing pregnancies or in neonates. The analysis was confined to ongoing pregnancies or liveborn children. Invasive antenatal tests were performed in 6.6% (2053/31 259), and 68% (95% confidence interval 56% to 80%) of cases of Down's syndrome were detected antenatally, giving a positive predictive value of 1.8%. There were 17 undetected cases, and in seven of these the women had declined an offer of invasive testing. In women aged less than 35 years the detection rate was 53% (30% to 76%). Most of the cases detected in younger women followed identification of ultrasound anomalies.
Conclusions: The overall detection rate was considerably higher than assumed in demonstration projects for serum screening. As a result, the benefits of serum screening are much less than supposed. Before any new methods to identify Down's syndrome are introduced, such as nuchal translucency or first trimester serum screening, the techniques should be tested in properly controlled trials.


Key messages

  • Serum screening for Down's syndrome has never been compared with screening by maternal age in a controlled trial

  • This study examined the effectiveness of screening by maternal age in combination with mid-trimester ultrasound scanning

  • The overall detection rate was 68%, considerably more effective than assumed in demonstration projects of serum screening

  • The benefits of serum screening, compared with screening by maternal age in conjunction with routine fetal anomaly scanning, may be much less than supposed

  • A higher standard of evidence should be demanded before proposed new screening methods are adopted




© BMJ 2000
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Screening for Down's syndrome
P A Boyd, M Jefferies, P F Chamberlain, A J M Crocker, G S McCune, A S Stock, A Foakes, Bent Norgaard-Pedersen, Howard Cuckle, N J Wald, A K Hackshaw, W Huttly, Tim Reynolds, David Howe, Diana Wellesley, Tracy Boyle, and John Barber
BMJ 2000 321: 762. [Extract] [Full Text]

Another option for Down's syndrome screening available
Jacqui Wise
BMJ 2000 320: 733. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Screening for Down's syndrome by maternal age and routine ultrasonography is effective
BMJ 2000 320: 0. [Full Text]

Evidence based screening for Down's syndrome
Sandy Raeburn
BMJ 2000 320: 592-593. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Pilnick, A. (2004). 'It's Just One of the Best Tests that We've Got at the Moment': the Presentation of Nuchal Translucency Screening for Fetal Abnormality in Pregnancy. Discourse Society 15: 451-465 [Abstract]  
  • Wellesley, D., Boyle, T., Barber, J., Howe, D. T (2002). Retrospective audit of different antenatal screening policies for Down's syndrome in eight district general hospitals in one health region. BMJ 325: 15-15 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Boyd, P A, Jefferies, M, Chamberlain, P F, Crocker, A J M, McCune, G S, Stock, A S, Foakes, A, Norgaard-Pedersen, B., Cuckle, H., Wald, N J, Hackshaw, A K, Huttly, W, Reynolds, T., Howe, D., Wellesley, D., Boyle, T., Barber, J. (2000). Screening for Down's syndrome. BMJ 321: 762a-762 [Full text]  
  • Raeburn, S. (2000). Evidence based screening for Down's syndrome. BMJ 320: 592-593 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

True Value of Scanning
James S Smeltzer
bmj.com, 4 Mar 2000 [Full text]
Down's syndrome screening policy
Howard Cuckle
bmj.com, 7 Mar 2000 [Full text]
Down's screening - A large independent trial may be useful
Tim Reynolds
bmj.com, 10 Mar 2000 [Full text]
Down's syndrome screening in Southampton - what is the evidence?
Bent Norgaard-Pedersen
bmj.com, 13 Mar 2000 [Full text]
Re: Down's syndrome screening policy
David T Howe
bmj.com, 14 Mar 2000 [Full text]
Screening for Down's Syndrome
P A Boyd
bmj.com, 21 Mar 2000 [Full text]
Combined modality approach -- the way forward for Down's syndrome screening ?
Bidyut Kumar
bmj.com, 28 Mar 2000 [Full text]
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ