The Guideline on Second trimester anomaly scan has been prepared by the National Maternal Fetal Medicine guidelines committee, approved by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Pakistan. These guidelines are developed in 2022 and will be reviewed after two years. The current document provides guidance about the importance of second trimester scan to practicing clinicians and sonologists. It will enable them to offer it timely offer to their patient this scan and refer them to the Fetal medicine specialist when indicated. It is unique as the document is modified according to local needs. The Guidelines are developed in 2022 and will be reviewed after two years.

These practice guidelines follow the mission of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine in collaboration with the Perinatal Medicine Foundation, bringing together groups and individuals throughout the world, with the goal of improving the ultrasound assessment of the fetal Central Nervous System (CNS) anatomy. In fact, this document provides further guidance for healthcare practitioners for the evaluation of the fetal CNS during the mid-trimester ultrasound scan with the aim to increase the ability in evaluating normal fetal anatomy. Therefore, it is not intended to establish a legal standard of care. This document is based on consensus among perinatal experts throughout the world, and serves as a guideline for use in clinical practice.

This study aimed to determine the optimal cervical priming regimen before surgical abortion between 14+0 and 24+0 weeks\' gestation.
Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for publications up to February 2020. Experts were consulted for any ongoing or missed trials.
Randomized controlled trials, published in English after 1985, that compared (1) mifepristone, misoprostol, and osmotic dilators against each other, alone or in combination; (2) different doses of mifepristone and misoprostol; (3) different intervals between priming and abortion; or (4) different routes of administration of misoprostol were included.
Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration checklist for randomized controlled trials, and data were meta-analyzed in Review Manager 5.3. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed as risk ratios using the Mantel-Haenszel method, and continuous outcomes were analyzed as mean differences using the inverse variance method. Fixed effects models were used when there was no significant heterogeneity (I2<50%), random effects models were used for moderate heterogeneity (I2≤50% and <80%), and evidence was not pooled when there was high heterogeneity (I2≥80%). Subgroup analyses were undertaken based on parity where available. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
A total of 15 randomized controlled trials (N=2454) were included and showed decreased difficulty of procedure and/or increased cervical dilation and decreased patient acceptability with regimens that included dilators compared with those that did not include dilators; increased preoperative expulsion of the pregnancy with sublingual misoprostol and mifepristone compared with sublingual misoprostol alone; increased difficulty of procedure with dilators and misoprostol compared with dilators and mifepristone; decreased difficulty of procedure with dilators and mifepristone compared with dilators alone; and increased cervical dilation when dilators were placed the day before abortion compared with the same day.
Considered alongside clinical expertise, the published data support the use of osmotic dilators, misoprostol, or mifepristone before abortion for pregnancies at 14+0 to 16+0 weeks\' gestation; osmotic dilators or misoprostol for pregnancies at 16+1 to 19+0 weeks\' gestation; and osmotic dilators alone or with mifepristone for pregnancies at 19+1 to 24+0 weeks\' gestation. The effectiveness of pharmacologic agents alone beyond 16+0 weeks\' gestation and the optimal timing of dilator placement remain important questions for future research.