Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22191050›Full record

ArticleISRN obstetrics and gynecology2011

Incidental prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosome aneuploidies: health, behavior, and fertility.

J J P M Pieters, A J A Kooper, A Geurts van Kessel, D D M Braat, A P T Smits

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ISRN obstetrics and gynecology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. To transfer or not to transfer: the case of comprehensive chromosome screening of the in vitro embryo.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2015
    Article
  16. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

J J P M PietersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
A J A Kooper
A Geurts van Kessel
D D M Braat
A P T Smits
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective. To assess the diagnostic relevance of incidental prenatal findings of sex chromosome aneuploidies. Methods. We searched with medical subject headings (MeSHs) and keywords in Medline and the Cochrane Library and systematically screened publications on postnatally diagnosed sex chromosomal aneuploidies from 2006 to 2011 as well as publications on incidentally prenatally diagnosed sex chromosomal aneuploidies from 1980 to 2011. Results. Postnatally diagnosed sex chromosomal aneuploidies demonstrated three clinical relevant domains of abnormality: physical (22-100%), behavior (0-56%), and reproductive health (47-100%), while incidentally prenatally diagnosed sex chromosomal aneuploidies demonstrated, respectively, 0-33%, 0-40%, and 0-36%. Conclusion. In the literature incidental prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosomal aneuploidies is associated with normal to mildly affected phenotypes. This contrasts sharply with those of postnatally diagnosed sex chromosomal aneuploidies and highlights the importance of this ascertainment bias towards the prognostic value of diagnosis of fetal sex chromosomal aneuploidies. This observation should be taken into account, especially when considering excluding the sex chromosomes in invasive prenatal testing using Rapid Aneuploidy Detection.

Identifiers

PMID22191050
PMCPMC3236411
OpenAlexW1990221610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.