Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24603453›Full record

ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2014

Attitudes towards non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy among US adults of reproductive age.

M Allyse, L C Sayres, T A Goodspeed, M K Cho

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
15.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M AllyseScience & Society, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
L C SayresDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
T A GoodspeedStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
M K ChoDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Genetics, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Duke University · USStanford University · US

Funding

Spectrum Stanford Center for clinical and Translational Research and EducationUL1TR001085 · NCATS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CULLEN, MARK RICHARD, GREENBERG, HARRY BERNARD · 2013 to 2017
$37.1M
Stanford Center for Clinical and Translational Education and Research (SCCTER)UL1UL1RR025744 · NCRR · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GREENBERG, HARRY BERNARD · 2008 to 2011
$22.4M
Center for Integration of Research on Genetics and EthicsP50HG003389 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CHO, MILDRED K. · 2004 to 2014
$9.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001085NCRR NIH HHS 1 U54 RR024374-01A1NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025744NHGRI NIH HHS P50 HG003389
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine how adults in the United States view non-invasive prenatal testing using cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA testing) in order to help estimate uptake. STUDY

designA national sample of 1861 US-based adults was surveyed using a validated online survey instrument. The survey was administered by a commercial survey research company. Respondents were randomized to receive a survey about prenatal testing for trisomy 13 and 18 or trisomy 21. Participants were asked to select among testing modalities, including cffDNA testing, and rank the features of testing that they considered most important to decision making.

resultThere was substantive interest in the use of cffDNA testing rather than traditional screening mechanisms, with a minority of respondents reporting that they would support the use of both methods in combination. The lower rates of false-negative and false-positive test results and the ability to use the test earlier in the pregnancy were the most highly rated benefits of cffDNA testing. Participants expressed strong support for diagnostic confirmation via invasive testing after a positive result from either screening or cffDNA testing. However, almost one-third of participants reported that they would not endorse the use of either invasive or non-invasive prenatal testing.

conclusionThere appears to be support for uptake of non-invasive prenatal tests. Clinical guidelines should therefore go forward in providing guidance on how to integrate non-invasive methods into the current standard of care. However, our findings indicate that even when accuracy, which is rated by patients as the most important aspect of prenatal testing, is significantly improved over existing screening methods and testing is offered non-invasively, the number of individuals who reported that they would decline any testing remained the same. Attention should therefore be directed at ensuring that the right of informed refusal of prenatal testing is not impacted by new, non-invasive methods.

Indexed as

AneuploidyAttitude to HealthAdolescentAdultCell-Free SystemFemaleGenetic TestingHealth SurveysHumansPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24603453
PMCPMC4399855
OpenAlexW2076841720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.