UCL  IRIS
Institutional Research Information Service
UCL Logo
Please report any queries concerning the funding data grouped in the sections named "Externally Awarded" or "Internally Disbursed" (shown on the profile page) to your Research Finance Administrator. Your can find your Research Finance Administrator at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/finance/research/rs-contacts.php by entering your department
Please report any queries concerning the student data shown on the profile page to:

Email: portico-services@ucl.ac.uk

Help Desk: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ras/portico/helpdesk
Publication Detail
Corrigendum to: Prenatal screening for Down syndrome in twin pregnancies: Estimates of screening performance based on 61 affected and 7302 unaffected twin pregnancies (Prenatal Diagnosis, (2018), 38, 13, (1079-1085), 10.1002/pd.5381)
  • Publication Type:
    Journal article
  • Publication Sub Type:
    Erratum
  • Authors:
    Wald NJ, Bestwick JP, Huttly WJ, Aldis J, Borrell A, Goodburn S, Mills I
  • Publication date:
    01/05/2019
  • Pagination:
    489, 491
  • Journal:
    Prenatal Diagnosis
  • Volume:
    39
  • Issue:
    6
  • Status:
    Published
  • Print ISSN:
    0197-3851
Abstract
This article corrects “Prenatal screening for Down syndrome in twin pregnancies: Estimates of screening performance based on 61 affected and 7302 unaffected twin pregnancies” published in Prenatal Diagnosis in 2018 (volume 38, pages 1079-1085, article first published online: 26 October 2018) The authors have recognized that there are errors in the published article. Firstly, the nuchal translucency (NT) standard deviations in unaffected singleton pregnancies were specified incorrectly. The log10 NT standard deviation in unaffected singleton pregnancies was 0.0976 at the 11th week of pregnancy and 0.0855 between 12 and 13 weeks and not 0.0963 and 0.0843, respectively, as given in the text of the paper. The correct estimates were used in the statistical calculations. Secondly, although the parameter estimates shown in Table 1 were correct, the NT-specific likelihood ratios were incorrectly calculated for the unaffected twin in affected dichorionic twin pregnancies. As a result, the estimates of screening performance for dichorionic twin pregnancies and all twin pregnancies in Figure 3 and Tables 3, 4 and 5 in our paper need to be revised and are shown below in corrected Figure 3 and corrected Tables 3, 4 and 5 (revisions in bold). The following text revisions are needed: (i) the second sentence of the penultimate paragraph of the Results should read (revisions in bold). “In singleton pregnancies, the addition of the serum markers to NT increased the detection rate by 10 percentage points (from 76% to 86%), by 13 percentage points in monochorionic twin pregnancies (from 74% to 87%) and by 5 percentage points in dichorionic twin pregnancies (from 69% to 74%).” (ii) The penultimate sentence of the same paragraph should read “For example, at a 1 in 150 risk cut-off, the screening performance is 77% for a 0.6% false-positive rate in monochorionic twin pregnancies and 75% for a 3.6% false-positive rate in dichorionic twin pregnancies.” (iii) The final sentence of the last paragraph of the results should read “For example, at a 2% false-positive rate, a risk cut-off of 1 in 150 could be used for singleton pregnancies, 1 in 500 for monochorionic twin pregnancies, and 1 in 90 for dichorionic twin pregnancies.” Corrected Figure 3: Down syndrome detection rates for a 3% false-positive rate using nuchal translucency (NT) with maternal age or the combined test (CT), which includes maternal age, in singleton (12 completed weeks), monochorionic twin and dichorionic twin pregnancies Corrected Table 3: Down syndrome screening performance of the combined test and nuchal translucency (NT) with maternal age in twin pregnancies compared with performance in singleton pregnancies (12 completed weeks); detection rate (DR) for specified false-positive rate (FPR) and FPR for specified DR (Table presented.) Corrected Table 4: Down syndrome screening performance of the combined test and nuchal translucency (NT) with maternal age in twin pregnancies compared with performance in singleton pregnancies (12 completed weeks); detection rate (DR) and false-positive rate (FPR) for specified term risk cutoffs (Table presented.) Corrected Table 5: Screening policy options; risk cutoff (term) according to false-positive rate (Table presented.).
Publication data is maintained in RPS. Visit https://rps.ucl.ac.uk
 More search options
UCL Researchers
Author
Institute of Health Informatics
University College London - Gower Street - London - WC1E 6BT Tel:+44 (0)20 7679 2000

© UCL 1999–2011

Search by