ArticleJournal of prenatal medicine2007
Prenatal diagnosis of genomic disorders and chromosome abnormalities using array-based comparative genomic hybridization.
Article in Journal of prenatal medicine, 2007. 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.
- Combined use of bacterial artificial chromosomes-on-beads with karyotype detection improves prenatal diagnosis.Molecular cytogenetics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cytogenetic analysis is a crucial tool of prenatal diagnosis. The ability to rapidly detect aneuploidy and identify small structural abnormalities of foetal chromosomes has been greatly improved by the use of molecular cytogenetic technologies. Microarray-based Comparative Genomic Hybridization (aCGH) has been recently employed in postnatal diagnosis of cryptic chromosomal aberrations, but use in prenatal diagnosis is still limited.We set-up a diagnostic protocol which uses aCGH technology on genomic DNA isolated from uncultured chorionic villus sampled at 11-12 week's gestation. We used a commercially targeted microarray (MDTelArray, Technogenetics Srl - Bouty Group, Sesto S. Giovanni, Milan, Italy) constituted by 167 genomic clones corresponding to 34 critical regions frequently involved in microdeletions and microduplications and 126 subtelomeric clones. Array validation has been carried-out via retrospective analysis of DNA isolated from a series of cytogenetically normal chorionic villus samples (CVS) and of DNA isolated from cytogenetically abnormal cultured amniocytes, CVS or peripheral blood. A pilot prospective study was undertaken analyzing 25 CVS obtained from foetuses at risk for chromosomal aberrations. aCGH results both for retrospective and prospective studies were in agreement with data obtained using "classical" cytogenetic analysis, and/or FISH analysis or DNA testing. Although these preliminary data support the usefulness of aCGH in prenatal diagnosis, further prospective studies are required to verify the feasibility of introducing this technique as part of the diagnostic armamentarium for identify affected foetuses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22470819PMC3309345W2137677053What 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.