Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26237473›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2014

The Psychological Challenges of Replacing Conventional Karyotyping with Genomic SNP Array Analysis in Prenatal Testing.

Sam Riedijk, Karin E M Diderich, Sanne L van der Steen, Lutgarde C P Govaerts, Marieke Joosten, Maarten F C M Knapen, Femke A T de Vries, Diane van Opstal, Aad Tibben, Robert-Jan H Galjaard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. [Clinical value of genome-wide chromosome microarray technique in diagnosis of fetal cerebral ventriculomegaly].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2018
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors.

Sam RiedijkDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Centre, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands. s.riedijk@erasmusmc.nl.
Karin E M DiderichDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Centre, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands. k.diderich@erasmusmc.nl.
Sanne L van der SteenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Centre, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands. s.vandersteen@erasmusmc.nl.
Lutgarde C P GovaertsDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Centre, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands. l.c.p.govaerts@erasmusmc.nl.
Marieke JoostenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Centre, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands. a.joosten@erasmusmc.nl.
Maarten F C M KnapenDepartment of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, 3015 CN Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.knapen@erasmusmc.nl.
Femke A T de VriesDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Centre, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands. f.a.t.devries@erasmusmc.nl.
Diane van OpstalDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Centre, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands. a.vanopstal@erasmusmc.nl.
Aad TibbenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Centre, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands. a.tibben@lumc.nl.
Robert-Jan H GaljaardDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Centre, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands. r.galjaard@erasmusmc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pregnant couples tend to prefer a maximum of information about the health of their fetus. Therefore, we implemented whole genome microarray instead of conventional karyotyping (CK) for all indications for prenatal diagnosis (PND). The array detects more clinically relevant anomalies, including early onset disorders, not related to the indication and more genetic anomalies of yet unquantifiable risk, so-called susceptibility loci (SL) for mainly neurodevelopmental disorders. This manuscript highlights the psychological challenges in prenatal genetic counselling when using the array and provides counselling suggestions. First, we suggest that pre-test decision counselling should emphasize deliberation about what pregnant couples wish to learn about the future health of their fetus more than information about possible outcomes. Second, pregnant couples need support in dealing with SL. Therefore, in order to consider the SL in a proportionate perspective, the presence of phenotypes associated with SL in the family, the incidence of a particular SL in control populations and in postnatally ascertained patients needs highlighting during post-test genetic counselling. Finally, the decision that couples need to make about the course of their pregnancy is more complicated when the expected phenotype is variable and not quantifiable. Therefore, during post-test psychological counseling, couples should concretize the options of continuing and ending their pregnancy; all underlying feelings and thoughts should be made explicit, as well as the couple's resources, in order to attain adequate decision-making. As such, pre- and post-test counselling aids pregnant couples in handling the uncertainties that may accompany offering a broader scope of genetic PND using the array.

Indexed as

counselling challengesprenatal diagnosisSNP array analysis

Identifiers

PMID26237473
PMCPMC4449635

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.