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.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of fetal chromosomal aneuploidy in pregnant women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- The Art (and Science) of Individualized Selection of Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening (NIPS).International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Discordant Prenatal Cell-Free DNA Screening vs. Diagnostic Results of Sex Chromosome Aneuploidies: Implications for Newborn Screening and Genetic Counseling.International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Article
- Noninvasive prenatal screening in a pregnant woman with a history of stem cell transplant from a male donor: A case report and literature review.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2024Review
- Comparison of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Pregnant Women with Fetal Ultrasonic Soft Markers.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and pregnant women's views on good motherhood: a qualitative study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Nanostructures in non-invasive prenatal genetic screening.Biomedical engineering letters · 2022Review
- Towards improved genetic diagnosis of human differences of sex development.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2021Review
- Clinical Efficiency of Non-invasive Prenatal Screening for Common Trisomies in Low-Risk and Twin Pregnancies.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Chromosomal microarray vs. NIPS: analysis of 5541 low-risk pregnancies.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Analysis of prenatal diagnosis before and after implementation of the two-child policy in northeastern China.Medicine · 2019Article
- Discordant sex between fetal screening and postnatal phenotype requires evaluation.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2019Article
- 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 · 2017Article
- Noninvasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy using cell-free DNA - New implications for maternal health.Obstetric medicine · 2016Review
- Patient Perception of Negative Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Results.AJP reports · 2016Article
- Impact of the increased adoption of prenatal cfDNA screening on non-profit patient advocacy organizations in the United States.Prenatal diagnosis · 2016Article
- Classifying aging as a disease in the context of ICD-11.Frontiers in genetics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What 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.