Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19012303›Full record

ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2009

Clinical use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis in 300 cases.

Ignatia B Van den Veyver, Ankita Patel, Chad A Shaw, Amber N Pursley, Sung-Hae L Kang, Marcia J Simovich, Patricia A Ward, Sandra Darilek, Anthony Johnson, Sarah E Neill and 6 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Variants of uncertain significance in prenatal microarrays: a retrospective cohort study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The 'thousand-dollar genome': an ethical exploration.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2013
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Women's experiences receiving abnormal prenatal chromosomal microarray testing results.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2013
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Ignatia B Van den VeyverDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Ankita Patel
Chad A Shaw
Amber N Pursley
Sung-Hae L Kang
Marcia J Simovich
Patricia A Ward
Sandra Darilek
Anthony Johnson
Sarah E Neill
Weimin Bi
Lisa D White
Christine M Eng
James R Lupski
Sau Wai Cheung
Arthur L Beaudet

Funding

MEDICAL GENETICS RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMT32GM007526 · NIGMS · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI Brendan Lee · 1985 to 2026
$11.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007526
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the use of array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for prenatal diagnosis, including assessment of variants of uncertain significance, and the ability to detect abnormalities not detected by karyotype, and vice versa.

methodsWomen undergoing amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) for karyotype were offered aCGH analysis using a targeted microarray. Parental samples were obtained concurrently to exclude maternal cell contamination and determine if copy number variants (CNVs) were de novo, or inherited prior to issuing a report.

resultsWe analyzed 300 samples, most were amniotic fluid (82%) and CVS (17%). The most common indications were advanced maternal age (N=123) and abnormal ultrasound findings (N=84). We detected 58 CNVs (19.3%). Of these, 40 (13.3%) were interpreted as likely benign, 15 (5.0%) were of defined pathological significance, while 3 (1.0%) were of uncertain clinical significance. For seven (approximately 2.3% or 1/43), aCGH contributed important new information. For two of these (1% or approximately 1/150), the abnormality would not have been detected without aCGH analysis.

conclusionAlthough aCGH-detected benign inherited variants in 13.3% of cases, these did not present major counseling difficulties, and the procedure is an improved diagnostic tool for prenatal detection of chromosomal abnormalities.

Indexed as

Comparative Genomic HybridizationAdultAmniocentesisChorionic Villi SamplingFemaleGene DosageGenetic CounselingHumansKaryotypingMicroarray AnalysisPregnancyPrenatal Diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID19012303
PMCPMC3665952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.