Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25053891›Full record

ReviewThe application of clinical genetics2014

Identification of trisomy 18, trisomy 13, and Down syndrome from maternal plasma.

Jean Gekas, Sylvie Langlois, Vardit Ravitsky, François Audibert, David-Gradus van den Berg, Hazar Haidar, François Rousseau

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The application of clinical genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

7 authors.

Jean GekasPrenatal Diagnosis Unit, Department of Medical Genetics and Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Québec City, Quebec, Canada ; Department of Medical Biology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Québec City, Quebec, Canada.
Sylvie LangloisDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Vardit RavitskyBioethics Program, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
François AudibertDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sainte Justine Hospital, Montreal, Canada.
David-Gradus van den BergDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Québec City, Quebec, Canada.
Hazar HaidarBioethics Program, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
François RousseauDepartment of Medical Biology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec, Québec City, Quebec, Canada ; Department of Molecular Biology, Medical Biochemistry and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Québec City, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current prenatal diagnosis for fetal aneuploidies (including trisomy 21 [T21]) generally relies on an initial biochemical serum-based noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) after which women who are deemed to be at high risk are offered an invasive confirmatory test (amniocentesis or chorionic villi sampling for a fetal karyotype), which is associated with a risk of fetal miscarriage. Recently, genomics-based NIPT (gNIPT) was proposed for the analysis of fetal genomic DNA circulating in maternal blood. The diffusion of this technology in routine prenatal care could be a major breakthrough in prenatal diagnosis, since initial research studies suggest that this novel approach could be very effective and could reduce substantially the number of invasive procedures. However, the limitations of gNIPT may be underappreciated. In this review, we examine currently published literature on gNIPT to highlight advantages and limitations. At this time, the performance of gNIPT is relatively well-documented only in high-risk pregnancies for T21 and trisomy 18. This additional screening test may be an option for women classified as high-risk of aneuploidy who wish to avoid invasive diagnostic tests, but it is crucial that providers carefully counsel patients about the test's advantages and limitations. The gNIPT is currently not recommended as a first-tier prenatal screening test for T21. Since gNIPT is not considered as a diagnostic test, a positive gNIPT result should always be confirmed by an invasive test, such as amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling. Validation studies are needed to optimally introduce this technology into the existing routine workflow of prenatal care.

Indexed as

cell-free fetal DNADown syndromeinformed consentnoninvasive prenatal testingprenatal diagnosisreproductive autonomy

Identifiers

PMID25053891
PMCPMC4104725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.