ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2014
Pregnancy Loss Following Amniocentesis or CVS Sampling-Time for a Reassessment of Risk.
Article 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Micrognathia as a Diagnosis Marker for the Prenatal Identification of Edwards Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- A relative-independent haplotype derivation method applied for noninvasive prenatal testing for chromosomal rearrangements in a pregnant carrier.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2025Article
- A novel noninvasive prenatal testing method for chromosomal rearrangements using maternal circulating cell-free foetal DNA.Clinical and translational medicine · 2023Article
- Pregnancy Loss After Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling: Cohort Study.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2020Article
- Article
- Opening Pandora's box?: ethical issues in prenatal whole genome and exome sequencing.Prenatal diagnosis · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk of procedure-related pregnancy loss is currently widely quoted in the UK as 1% for amniocentesis and 1.5% for chorionic villus sampling. Published data suggest that these risk figures are out of date and inaccurate, and that new guidelines are required for pre-test counseling. It is our opinion that accurate and evidence-based information concerning miscarriage risk is vital when counseling women, as exaggeration of this risk may deter women from testing, or cause unjustified remorse if a miscarriage ensues. It is also essential that health-care economists are aware of the up-to-date evidence on "procedure-related risk" when applying risk-benefit analysis to assess new technology for non-invasive 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.