Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22413963›Full record

ArticleMolecular cytogenetics2012

Genomic SNP array as a gold standard for prenatal diagnosis of foetal ultrasound abnormalities.

Malgorzata I Srebniak, Marjan Boter, Gretel O Oudesluijs, Titia Cohen-Overbeek, Lutgarde Cp Govaerts, Karin Em Diderich, Renske Oegema, Maarten Fcm Knapen, Ingrid Mbh van de Laar, Marieke Joosten and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular cytogenetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Malgorzata I SrebniakDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. m.srebniak@erasmusmc.nl.
Marjan Boter
Gretel O Oudesluijs
Titia Cohen-Overbeek
Lutgarde Cp Govaerts
Karin Em Diderich
Renske Oegema
Maarten Fcm Knapen
Ingrid Mbh van de Laar
Marieke Joosten
Diane Van Opstal
Robert-Jan H Galjaard

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe have investigated whether replacing conventional karyotyping by SNP array analysis in cases of foetal ultrasound abnormalities would increase the diagnostic yield and speed of prenatal diagnosis in clinical practice. FINDINGS/

resultsFrom May 2009 till June 2011 we performed HumanCytoSNP-12 array (HCS) (http://www.Illumina.com) analysis in 207 cases of foetal structural abnormalities. HCS allows detecting unbalanced genomic abnormalities with a resolution of about 150/200 kb. All cases were selected by a clinical geneticist after excluding the most common aneuploidies by RAD (rapid aneuploidy detection). Pre-test genetic counselling was offered in all cases.In 24/207 (11,6%) foetuses a clinically relevant genetic abnormality was detected. Only 8/24 abnormalities would have been detected if only routine karyotyping was performed. Submicroscopic abnormalities were found in 16/207 (7,7%) cases. The array results were achieved within 1-2 weeks after amniocentesis.

conclusionsPrenatal SNP array testing is faster than karyotyping and allows detecting much smaller aberrations (~0.15 Mb) in addition to the microscopic unbalanced chromosome abnormalities detectable with karyotyping (~ > 5 Mb). Since karyotyping would have missed 66% (16/24) of genomic abnormalities in our cohort, we propose to perform genomic high resolution array testing assisted by pre-test counselling as a primary prenatal diagnostic test in cases of foetal ultrasound abnormalities.

Identifiers

PMID22413963
PMCPMC3328283

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.