Pregnancy
NIPT or NT scan? Why the 2026 evidence supports doing Both

Article produced in association with London Pregnancy Clinic
One of the most common questions in early pregnancy: NIPT or the nuchal translucency (NT) scan – do I really need both? The 2026 evidence gives a clear answer.
The two tests look at different things, and doing them together is how first-trimester screening works at its best.
This is not a debate between old and new technology. NIPT is a genuine advance in detecting chromosome abnormalities from a maternal blood sample.
The NT scan is the first detailed look at how the fetus is forming. What each sees, the other largely cannot.
What NIPT actually tells you
NIPT – non-invasive prenatal testing – analyses fragments of fetal DNA circulating in the mother’s blood. Taken from around 10 weeks, the test measures chromosome proportions to flag the common trisomies: trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), trisomy 18 (Edwards) and trisomy 13 (Patau).
Most panels include fetal sex and sex-chromosome aneuploidies. Extended NIPT adds selected microdeletion syndromes – most commonly 22q11.2 (DiGeorge syndrome) – and the newest whole-genome platforms can detect copy-number variants down to around 1 Mb across every chromosome.
What NIPT does not look at is anatomy. It tells you whether the chromosomes are numerically correct.
It cannot tell you how the heart, brain, spine, kidneys or abdominal wall are forming, because it analyses DNA, not structure.
The NHS offers NIPT as a second-line screening test, reserved for women who receive a higher-chance result from the combined test – precisely because NIPT is best understood as one part of a wider screening picture rather than the whole of it.
What the NT scan actually tells you
The NT scan is an ultrasound performed at 11 to 14 weeks that measures the nuchal translucency – a small fluid-filled space at the back of the fetal neck.
Protocols developed by the Fetal Medicine Foundation, the group that pioneered first-trimester screening under Professor Kypros Nicolaides at King’s College Hospital, combine the NT measurement with additional markers: nasal bone, ductus venosus flow, tricuspid regurgitation, and maternal serum biomarkers (PAPP-A and free β-hCG).
More importantly, the scan is the first structural assessment of the fetus.
Major anomalies already visible at 11-14 weeks include absence of the cranial vault, large body-wall defects such as omphalocele and gastroschisis, megacystis, severe cardiac defects with abnormal four-chamber views, and skeletal dysplasias.
An increased NT measurement itself – even with a completely normal chromosome result – is associated with a notable rate of structural heart defects and monogenic syndromes that NIPT cannot detect.
Why the combination outperforms either test alone
Taken together, NIPT and the NT scan give complementary coverage.
For the common trisomies, NIPT is more sensitive than the NT scan alone. Pooled data place detection of trisomy 21 above 99 per cent with a false-positive rate around 0.1 per cent.
Combined first-trimester screening without NIPT, using NT and serum markers alone, reaches approximately 90 per cent detection – and up to 95 per cent when nasal bone, ductus venosus and tricuspid flow are added – at a 3 to 5 per cent false-positive rate.
For that specific endpoint, NIPT is the more accurate test.
The NT scan picks up almost everything NIPT misses: structural anomalies, early markers of monogenic syndromes, confirmation of viability, accurate dating, twin chorionicity, and placental position.
An increased NT with a normal NIPT result shifts the clinical conversation toward syndromes like Noonan, Kabuki and the skeletal dysplasias – conditions with single-gene origins rather than chromosomal ones.
Working out which is which often requires genetic testing beyond NIPT. Carrier screening and expanded genetic panels – including those offered at Jeen Health – cover the single-gene territory that NIPT does not address.
When the combination matters most
Several patient groups have most to gain from doing both:
- Women conceiving after IVF or with donor gametes, where maternal age and fertility treatment each subtly shift risk profiles
- Women aged 35 and over, where baseline chromosomal risk is higher and soft markers are more likely
- Anyone with a previous pregnancy affected by an anomaly or loss, where reassurance matters
- Twin pregnancies, where NIPT performance depends on fetal fraction and structural assessment is more complex
- Women who have had a raised or borderline result on earlier screening markers
Chromosomes and anatomy are two separate clinical questions. Each needs its own answer.
What happens if the tests disagree
Disagreements between NIPT and the NT scan are not failures of either test – they are the reason both are done.
- NIPT low-risk, NT raised: consider monogenic syndromes, structural cardiac assessment, and early anomaly ultrasound follow-up
- NIPT higher-chance, scan normal: confirmatory diagnostic testing (CVS or amniocentesis) before any major decision
- NIPT no-call: repeat sampling, gestational age check and clinical review – a no-call itself is associated with an increased chromosomal risk
- Both abnormal: a clear indication for specialist fetal medicine review and early diagnostic testing
Professional guidance from the RCOG supports this complementary approach, emphasising that NIPT is a screening rather than a diagnostic test, and that its results are most useful when interpreted alongside ultrasound findings.
Practical guidance for 2026
The most efficient way to run both tests is in a single appointment window, between 10 and 14 weeks, with the blood sample taken first and the scan performed on the same visit.
Results typically return within 5 to 10 working days for standard NIPT panels, and same-day for the scan itself.
This is the logic behind the SMART Test at London Pregnancy Clinic – extended NIPT paired with a full first-trimester ultrasound in a single appointment, delivering both chromosomal and structural information in one visit. For most patients, it removes the false choice of picking one over the other.
The wider picture
The question of NIPT versus NT scan has a settled clinical answer in 2026: the two tests examine different aspects of the pregnancy, and the most complete first-trimester assessment uses both.
For a pregnancy a woman wants to carry with the fullest possible picture, both tests belong in the first-trimester window. The question worth asking is which clinic offers them together, with the pre- and post-test care that makes the results usable.
If you are deciding on first-trimester screening, a consultation with a fetal medicine specialist is the most useful first step.
Disclaimer: This article is produced for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Clinical guidance referenced reflects published NHS, Fetal Medicine Foundation and RCOG standards as at April 2026. Individual circumstances vary; readers are advised to consult a qualified healthcare professional before acting on any information in this article. This piece was produced in association with London Pregnancy Clinic, which provided background clinical information for editorial purposes. Hyperlinks to external sources are included for reference only and do not represent an endorsement of any product, service or organisation.
Pregnancy
£50m initiative aims to tackle disparities in maternal healthcare
Pregnancy
Liverpool uni secures £18.m for women’s health studio and life-saving tech

The University of Liverpool has secured £1.8m to test a device for postpartum bleeding and launch a new women’s health studio.
The PPH Butterfly is designed to help control postpartum haemorrhage, which is severe bleeding after childbirth and a leading cause of maternal death worldwide.
The funding will support research into how the device can be used in clinical practice and generate evidence to inform its wider adoption.
The university has launched the Women’s Health Innovation Studio, known as the WIN Studio, alongside the project.
The £1.8m initiative is predominantly funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which is providing £1.5m, with additional support from the university.
The PPH Butterfly project will involve a multi-centre clinical trial across the UK and a global feasibility study looking at how practical it would be to use the device in different healthcare settings.
The WIN Studio is led by Andrew Weeks, professor of international maternal health care at the University of Liverpool and a senior investigator at the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Dr Teesta Dey, a tenure track fellow in the department of women’s and children’s health.
Dr Dey will also lead the PPH Butterfly project.
Its work will cover conditions linked to female biology, including endometriosis, menopause and pregnancy-related complications.
It will also support technologies for diseases that affect women differently or disproportionately, even when they are not usually classed as gender-specific conditions.
Dr Dey said: “Women’s health has often been marginalised within healthcare systems and innovation markets, resulting in treatments, devices and care models that fail to adequately account for women’s specific needs. WIN Studio seeks to change this status quo and reconfigure how health technologies are conceived and delivered.
“The funding from NIHR for this £1.8m project is precisely the kind of innovation the WIN Studio exists to foster: clinically urgent, women-centred, and with the potential to save lives at scale.”
The studio recently hosted an event at Liverpool Women’s University Hospital as part of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’s Innovation Investment Fortnight.
Seven innovations are currently undergoing clinical testing through the studio, with three developed internally.
The studio will work closely with NHS University Hospitals Liverpool Group and provide clinical, regulatory and commercial support to people developing women’s health technologies.
It will also involve patients and members of the public in shaping research priorities and product development.
Its wider programme includes collaborations involving clinicians, engineers, economists, academics and policymakers.
The project team says the PPH Butterfly is a simple, low-cost device designed to control severe bleeding quickly and with minimal training.
According to the team, postpartum haemorrhage causes around 70,000 deaths globally each year, equal to about one death every seven minutes.
The device previously received £1.1m in funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research.
The latest £1.5m grant will support a randomised UK trial, in which participants are allocated to different treatment groups by chance, and a global feasibility assessment.
Weeks said: “In an area where women face deep health inequalities, WIN Studio has a vital role to play. By working in partnership with the NHS, local government and communities, we can ensure that research leads to real-world impact.
“Liverpool has a highly integrated ecosystem of academic, clinical and commercial expertise. By bringing these together under a single platform, the WIN Studio aims to act as a national exemplar for equitable health innovation. Transforming the way medical technologies are developed is essential to addressing gender disparities in healthcare outcomes.”
Another product supported by the university, the LifeStart Trolley, has already reached commercialisation.
The small mobile resuscitation trolley allows newborn care to be carried out at the bedside while the baby’s umbilical cord remains intact, enabling delayed cord clamping.
Delayed cord clamping means waiting before cutting the cord so blood can continue flowing from the placenta to the baby after birth.
Clinical trials conducted around 10 years ago found that life-saving care could be provided successfully at the bedside using the trolley.
It was later commercialised by Inspiration Healthcare and is now used in more than 70 UK maternity units and in 36 countries, including Norway, Italy and the US.
Pregnancy
Type 2 diabetes raising twice as fast in younger womem, research finds
Menopause2 weeks agoPerimenopause misinformation ‘putting women at risk’
Hormonal health3 weeks agoNHS urged to update website following renaming of PCOS
News2 weeks agoWomen still being failed when they reach menopause, experts say
Insight4 weeks agoPCOS renamed after decade-long campaign to end ‘cyst’ misconception
Entrepreneur2 weeks agoWomen’s Health Innovation Summit opens submissions for 2026 Innovation Showcase
Insight1 week agoBritish women among angriest in Europe, health survey reveals
News2 weeks agoThree menopause innovators shortlisted for Femtech World Award
Cancer4 weeks agoAI could transform ovarian care through personalisation, study finds
















