ArticleHippokratia2008
A four-year retrospective study of amniocentesis: one centre experience.
Article in Hippokratia, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prenatal Management of Spinal Muscular Atrophy in the Era of Genetic Screening and Emerging Opportunities in In Utero Therapy.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- A Four-Year Retrospective Study of Amniocentesis in a Tertiary Care Center in South India-Lessons Learnt.Journal of pregnancy · 2025Article
- Does Chorionic Villus Sampling Increase the Risk of Preeclampsia or Gestational Hypertension?International journal of preventive medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimMonitor the performance of the amniocentesis procedure for prenatal diagnosis and particularly the acquisition of results (time to get, success in getting them). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a retrospective review of case notes of all pregnant women undergone amniocentesis in our department during the period 2002-2005. Two main operators performed the procedure, using 22 gauze needle usually and 20 gauze should longer needle was needed. Sevendy three patients undergone amniocentesis. The reasons for having this procedure were: increased risk for Down syndrome in 68% (50/73), maternal request in 24% (18/73), suspicious ultrasound findings in 4% (3/73) and family history in 3% (2/73). Maternal age ranged from 20 to 45 years and the gestation time that amniocentesis was performed was 15 to 23 weeks. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and culture were used in order to obtain karyotype results.
resultsIn 92% (67/73) of cases one needle pass was needed. FISH and culture were performed in 96% (70/73) of cases, FISH only in 3% (2/73) and culture only in 1% (1/73). The chromosome results were normal in 93% (68/73) of cases, Down's syndrome in 4% (3/73) and Edwards syndrome in 3% (2/73). The outcome of pregnancies was: live births in 89% (65/73), stillbirths at 32 weeks and 35 weeks in 3% (2/73), miscarriages in 1% (1/73 at 19 weeks, 3 weeks after the amniocentesis), terminations in 7% (5/73, due to chromosomal abnormalities). Sixty one women delivered at term (84%) and 6 women (8%) delivered preterm.
conclusionThe post amniocentesis rate of miscarriage is calculated at 1% in our centre. FISH analysis can relieve stress of couples by reducing the waiting time for results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18923654PMC2464303What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.