Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25708280›Full record

Trial reportPrenatal diagnosis2015

Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for cystic fibrosis: detection of paternal mutations, exploration of patient preferences and cost analysis.

Melissa Hill, Philip Twiss, Talitha I Verhoef, Suzanne Drury, Fiona McKay, Sarah Mason, Lucy Jenkins, Stephen Morris, Lyn S Chitty

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Prenatal diagnosis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD): current and emerging technologies.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2023
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

9 authors.

Melissa HillNorth East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Philip TwissNorth East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Talitha I VerhoefResearch Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Suzanne DruryNorth East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Fiona McKayNorth East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3626-764X
Sarah MasonNorth East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Lucy JenkinsNorth East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Stephen MorrisResearch Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Lyn S ChittyNorth East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0707-10107
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aim to develop non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for cystic fibrosis (CF) and determine costs and implications for implementation.

methodsA next-generation sequencing assay was developed to detect ten common CF mutations for exclusion of the paternal mutation in maternal plasma. Using uptake data from a study exploring views on NIPD for CF, total test-related costs were estimated for the current care pathway and compared with those incorporating NIPD.

resultsThe assay reliably predicted mutation status in all control and maternal plasma samples. Of carrier or affected adults with CF (n = 142) surveyed, only 43.5% reported willingness to have invasive testing for CF with 94.4% saying they would have NIPD. Using these potential uptake data, the incremental costs of NIPD over invasive testing per 100 pregnancies at risk of CF are £9025 for paternal mutation exclusion, and £26,510 for direct diagnosis.

conclusionsWe have developed NIPD for risk stratification in around a third of CF families. There are economic implications due to potential increased test demand to inform postnatal management rather than to inform decisions around termination of an affected pregnancy.

Indexed as

Costs and Cost AnalysisCystic FibrosisFemaleGenetic Carrier ScreeningHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleMaternal Serum Screening TestsMutationPatient Preference

Identifiers

PMID25708280
PMCPMC4672687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.