ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2014
Prenatal Screening Using Maternal Markers.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved contingent screening strategy increased trisomy 21 detection rate in the second trimester.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Based Prediction of First Trimester Down Syndrome Risk in East Asian Populations.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Current Status of Adoption and Roadmap for the Future.The application of clinical genetics · 2025Article
- An assessment of analytical performance using the six sigma scale in second-trimester maternal prenatal screening practices in China.Practical laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Recent Advances in the Prevention and Screening of Preeclampsia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Clinical Validation of Novel Chip-Based Digital PCR Platform for Fetal Aneuploidies Screening.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Maternal markers are widely used to screen for fetal neural tube defects (NTDs), chromosomal abnormalities and cardiac defects. Some are beginning to broaden prenatal screening to include pregnancy complications such as pre-eclampsia. The methods initially developed for NTDs using a single marker have since been built upon to develop high performance multi-maker tests for chromosomal abnormalities. Although cell-free DNA testing is still too expensive to be considered for routine application in public health settings, it can be cost-effective when used in combination with existing multi-maker marker tests. The established screening methods can be readily applied in the first trimester to identify pregnancies at high risk of pre-eclampsia and offer prevention though aspirin treatment. Prenatal screening for fragile X syndrome might be adopted more widely if the test was to be framed as a form of maternal marker screening.
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.