Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26033224›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2015

Positive predictive value of non-invasive prenatal screening for fetal chromosome disorders using cell-free DNA in maternal serum: independent clinical experience of a tertiary referral center.

Whitney A Neufeld-Kaiser, Edith Y Cheng, Yajuan J Liu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Chromosomal microarray vs. NIPS: analysis of 5541 low-risk pregnancies.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Discordant sex between fetal screening and postnatal phenotype requires evaluation.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2019
    Article
  13. Cell-free DNA testing of an extended range of chromosomal anomalies: clinical experience with 6,388 consecutive cases.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Whitney A Neufeld-KaiserDepartment of Pathology, Cytogenetics and Genomics Laboratory, University of Washington School of Medicine, Box 357470, HSB H474B, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195-7470, USA. whitneyn@uw.edu.
Edith Y ChengMaternal Fetal Medicine and Medical Genetics, Departments of Obstetrics and Gyencology and Internal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. chengels@uw.edu.
Yajuan J LiuDepartment of Pathology, Cytogenetics and Genomics Laboratory, University of Washington School of Medicine, Box 357470, HSB H474B, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195-7470, USA. yajuan@uw.edu.
University of Washington · USSeattle University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for fetal chromosome abnormalities using cell-free deoxyribonucleic acid (cfDNA) in maternal serum has significantly influenced prenatal diagnosis of fetal aneuploidies since becoming clinically available in the fall of 2011. High sensitivity and specificity have been reported in multiple publications, nearly all of which have been sponsored by the commercial performing laboratories. Once results are returned, positive and negative predictive values (PPVs, NPVs) are the performance metrics most relevant to clinical management. The purpose of this report is to present independent data on the PPVs of NIPS in actual clinical practice.

methodsCharts were retrospectively reviewed for patients who had NIPS and were seen March 2012 to December 2013 in a tertiary academic referral center. NIPS results were compared to diagnostic genetic test results, fetal ultrasound results, and clinical phenotype/outcomes. The PPV was calculated using standard epidemiological methods. Correlation between screen results and both maternal age at delivery and gestational age at time of screening was assessed using Wilcoxon's rank sum test.

resultsOf 632 patients undergoing NIPS, 92 % of tests were performed in one of the four major commercial laboratories offering testing. However, all four laboratories are represented in both the normal and abnormal results groups. There were 55 abnormal NIPS results. Forty-one of 55 abnormal NIPS results were concordant with abnormal fetal outcomes, 12 were discordant, and 2 were undetermined. The PPV for all conditions included in the screen was 77.4 % (95 % CI, 63.4 - 87.3). Of 578 patients with normal NIPS results, normal pregnancy outcome was confirmed for 156 (27 %) patients. This incomplete follow-up of normal NIPS results does not affect PPV calculations, but it did preclude calculations of sensitivity, specificity, and NPV. Maternal age at delivery was significantly lower for patients with abnormal discordant results, compared to patients with abnormal concordant results (P = 0.034). Gestational age at time of screening was not associated with concordance of screen results (P = 0.722).

conclusionsThe experience of using NIPS in clinical practice confirms that abnormal results cannot be considered diagnostic. Pre-test counseling should emphasize this. Diagnostic genetic testing should always be offered following abnormal NIPS results.

Indexed as

AdultChromosome DisordersDNAFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMaternal Serum Screening TestsPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyRetrospective StudiesTertiary Care CentersTrisomyDNA

Identifiers

PMID26033224
PMCPMC4480508
OpenAlexW1560669497

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.