ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2004
Adjunct prenatal testing: patient decisions regarding ethnic carrier screening and fluorescence in situ hybridization.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Difference in Perception of Pregnancy Risk in Two Maternal Age Groups.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Little has been reported regarding how women make decisions about genetic carrier screening for Ashkenazi Jewish genetic disease and cystic fibrosis (CF), and for fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) during pregnancy. Thirty-seven women who underwent genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis were interviewed about their prenatal decision making. Respondents were largely Caucasian (95%), and undergoing prenatal diagnosis because of maternal age (78%). Sixty-three percent of those who reported having genetic carrier screening correctly defined it; 83% felt positively about it. Primary reasons reported for electing screening were: to get information, to be prepared, perception of risk, wanting peace of mind and percieved inability to care for an affected child. Women who declined screening felt they had very little or no risk, and some were deterred by cost. Ninety-five percent of respondents elected to have FISH; most were motivated by its speed in providing information and peace of mind or by timing of when the procedure was performed. Those who declined FISH reported being less concerned about having an affected child, receiving bad news, or waiting 2 weeks for results and slightly less affected by their "feelings toward medical testing" or physician's suggestion. These findings suggest decision-making factors differ between those electing and declining adjunct prenatal testing and increased knowledge about these factors may impact the way in which these services are offered by health care professionals. Prospective research with a larger population will be useful in further delineating the factors that influence prenatal decisions about adjunct testing measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.