ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2010
Prenatal testing for Down syndrome: comparison of screening practices in the UK and USA.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pregnant Hispanic women's views and knowledge of prenatal genetic testing.Journal of genetic counseling · 2021Article
- Is routine prenatal screening and testing fundamentally incompatible with a commitment to reproductive choice? Learning from the historical context.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Article
- Is preparation a good reason for prenatal genetic testing? Ethical and critical questions.Birth defects research · 2020Article
- The scope of prenatal diagnosis for women at increased risk for aneuploidies: views and preferences of professionals and potential users.Journal of community genetics · 2013Article
- Rapid aneuploidy detection or karyotyping? Ethical reflection.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2011Article
- Advances in prenatal screening: the ethical dimension.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2011Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prenatal testing for Down Syndrome is a topic covered in every genetic counselor's training as it constitutes the main workload of genetic counselors in prenatal settings. Most Western countries nowadays offer some type of testing for Down Syndrome. However, practices vary according to country with regards to what tests are offered, insurance coverage and the legal situation concerning the option of terminating an affected pregnancy. In view of the growing interest in international genetic counseling issues, this article aims to compare prenatal testing practices in two English-speaking countries: the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A case will be presented to highlight some of the differences in practice. The topic underlines important implications for genetic counseling practice, such as patients' understanding of testing practices, risk perception, counseling provision and impact of prenatal testing results.
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.