OBJECTIVE: To describe and illustrate a method of setting Down syndrome screening targets and auditing performance that allows for differences in the maternal age distribution. METHODS: A reference population was determined from a Gaussian model of maternal age. Target detection and false-positive rates were determined by standard statistical modelling techniques, except that the reference population rather than an observed population was used. Second-trimester marker parameters were obtained for Down syndrome from a large meta-analysis, and for unaffected pregnancies from the combined results of more than 600,000 screens in five centres. Audited detection and false-positive rates were the weighted average of the rates in five broad age groups corrected for viability bias. Weights were based on the age distributions in the reference population. RESULTS: Maternal age was found to approximate reasonably well to a Gaussian distribution with mean 27 years and standard deviation 5.5 years. Depending on marker combination, the target detection rates were 59 to 64% and false-positive rate 4.2 to 5.4% for a 1 in 250 term cut-off; 65 to 68% and 6.1 to 7.3% for 1 in 270 at mid-trimester. Among the five centres, the audited detection rate ranged from 7% below target to 10% above target, with audited false-positive rates better than the target by 0.3 to 1.5%. CONCLUSION: Age-standardisation should help to improve screening quality by allowing for intrinsic differences between programmes, so that valid comparisons can be made. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
OBJECTIVE: To describe and illustrate a method of setting Down syndrome screening targets and auditing performance that allows for differences in the maternal age distribution. METHODS: A reference population was determined from a Gaussian model of maternal age. Target detection and false-positive rates were determined by standard statistical modelling techniques, except that the reference population rather than an observed population was used. Second-trimester marker parameters were obtained for Down syndrome from a large meta-analysis, and for unaffected pregnancies from the combined results of more than 600,000 screens in five centres. Audited detection and false-positive rates were the weighted average of the rates in five broad age groups corrected for viability bias. Weights were based on the age distributions in the reference population. RESULTS: Maternal age was found to approximate reasonably well to a Gaussian distribution with mean 27 years and standard deviation 5.5 years. Depending on marker combination, the target detection rates were 59 to 64% and false-positive rate 4.2 to 5.4% for a 1 in 250 term cut-off; 65 to 68% and 6.1 to 7.3% for 1 in 270 at mid-trimester. Among the five centres, the audited detection rate ranged from 7% below target to 10% above target, with audited false-positive rates better than the target by 0.3 to 1.5%. CONCLUSION: Age-standardisation should help to improve screening quality by allowing for intrinsic differences between programmes, so that valid comparisons can be made. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.