Skip to main content

[]

Intended for healthcare professionals
Skip to main content
Free access
Research article
First published December 2006

Validation plots in antenatal screening for Down's syndrome

Abstract

Objective

To validate empirically the accuracy of antenatal Down's syndrome screening using the Integrated test, to compare this with other screening tests (including the Integrated test with the addition of cross trimester [CT] marker ratios) and to suggest how such validation analyses should be presented and interpreted.

Methods

Using data from 7809 unaffected and 27 Down's syndrome pregnancies that had had an Integrated test, risk estimates for various screening tests (maternal age, Double, Triple, Quadruple, Combined, Integrated and serum Integrated tests) that use Integrated test markers were categorized according to quintile categories of risk estimates of the 27 affected pregnancies. For each screening test, the median risk estimate for each category was plotted against the observed prevalence within each category. Such validation plots were also produced for the Integrated test with CT marker ratios by measuring the level of the serum markers in the trimester of pregnancy not already measured in stored samples of all affected and a one-in-five sample of unaffected pregnancies. The robustness of the method was assessed by repeating the analysis for the Integrated test after re-classifying affected pregnancies with low risk estimates as unaffected, simulating the underascertainment of cases.

Results

The validation plots (i) confirmed the accuracy of risk estimation for the different tests (by how close the points lay to the line of identity between predicted risk and observed prevalence), (ii) demonstrated the differences in screening performance of the different tests (by the range of risk spanned by the points and, in particular, the separation between the points representing the lowest risk and the next point), and (iii) are robust to underascertainment of affected pregnancies (by having little influence on the closeness of the points to the line of identity).

Conclusion

The validation plot is a useful, simple and robust way to assess the validity of new screening methods, to assess the accuracy of risk estimation and to audit the performance of screening programmes.

References

1. Wald NJ, Hackshaw AK, Huttly W, Kennard A. Empirical validation of risk screening for Down's syndrome. J Med Screen 3: 185–7
2. Wald NJ, Huttly WJ. Validation of risk estimation using the quadruple test in prenatal screening for Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 1999; 19: 1083
3. Onda T, Tanaka T, Takeda O., et al. Agreement between predicted risk and prevalence of Down syndrome in second-trimester triple-marker screening in Japan. Prenat Diagn 1998; 18: 956–8
4. Meier C, Huang T, Wyatt PR, Summers AM. Accuracy of trisomy 18 screening using the second trimester triple test. Prenat Diagn 2003; 23: 443–6.
5. Prefumo F, Thilaganathan B. Agreement between predicted risk and prevalence of Down syndrome in first trimester nuchal translucency screening. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22: 917–18
6. Spencer K. Accuracy of Down syndrome risks produced in a first-trimester screening programme incorporating fetal nuchal translucency thickness and maternal serum biochemistry. Prenat Diagn 2002; 22: 244–246
7. Canick JA, Rish S. The accuracy of assigned risks in maternal serum screening. Prenat Diagn 1998; 18: 413–15
8. Wald NJ, Rodeck C, Hackshaw AK, Walters J, Chitty L, Mackinson AM. First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down's syndrome: the results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). J Med Screen 2003; 10: 56–104
9. Wald N, Rodeck C, Rudnicka A, Hackshaw A. Nuchal translucency and gestational age. Prenat Diagn 2004; 24: 150–1
10. Wald NJ, Bestwick JP, Morris JK. Cross-trimester marker ratios in prenatal screening Down syndrome. Prenat Diagn 2006; 26: 514–23
11. Morris JK, Wald NJ, Watt HC. Fetal loss in Down syndrome pregnancies. Prenat Diagn 1999; 19: 142–5

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
Email Article Link
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published: December 2006
Issue published: December 2006

Rights and permissions

© 2006 Medical Screening Society.
PubMed: 17217604

Authors

Affiliations

N J Wald
Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
J P Bestwick
Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
W J Huttly
Antenatal Screening Manager, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
J K Morris
Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
L M George
Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK

Notes

Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; [email protected]

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Journal of Medical Screening.

View All Journal Metrics

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 130

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 7 view articles Opens in new tab

Crossref: 7

  1. Antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome: Revised nuchal translucency upper truncation limit due to improved precision of measurement
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle ScholarPub Med
  2. Serum marker truncation limits in first trimester antenatal screening for trisomy 18
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle ScholarPub Med
  3. Antenatal screening for Down syndrome: A quantitative demonstration of the improvements over the past 20 years
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle ScholarPub Med
  4. The population impact of screening for Down syndrome: audit of 19 326 invasive diagnostic tests in England and Wales in 2008
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  5. Performance Characteristics of the UniCel DxI 800 Immunoassay for the Maternal Serum Quadruple Test, Including Median Values for Each Week of Gestation, in Korean Women
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evaluation of a Proposed Mixture Model to Specify the Distributions of Nuchal Translucency Measurements in Antenatal Screening for Down's Syndrome
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle ScholarPub Med
  7. Vogel and Motulsky's Human Genetics
    Go to citationCrossrefGoogle Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.