Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26237479›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2014

Chromosomal Mosaicism in Human Feto-Placental Development: Implications for Prenatal Diagnosis.

Francesca Romana Grati

Open access · goldAbstract 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 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.1field-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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 161 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Advances in laboratory medicine · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Francesca Romana GratiResearch & Development, Cytogenetics, Molecular Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology, TOMA Advanced Biomedical Assays S.P.A., 25/27 Francesco Ferrer Str., Busto Arsizio 21052, Varese, Italy. fgrati@tomalab.com.
HistoGenetics (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chromosomal mosaicism is one of the primary interpretative issues in prenatal diagnosis. In this review, the mechanisms underlying feto-placental chromosomal mosaicism are presented. Based on the substantial retrospective diagnostic experience with chorionic villi samples (CVS) of a prenatal diagnosis laboratory the following items are discussed: (i) The frequency of the different types of mosaicism (confined placental, CPM, and true fetal mosaicisms, TFM); (ii) The risk of fetal confirmation after the detection of a mosaic in CVS stratified by chromosome abnormality and placental tissue involvement; (iii) The frequency of uniparental disomy for imprinted chromosomes associated with CPM; (iv) The incidence of false-positive and false-negative results in CVS samples analyzed by only (semi-)direct preparation or long term culture; and (v) The implications of the presence of a feto-placental mosaicism for microarray analysis of CVS and non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS).

Indexed as

amniocentesischorionic villichromosome mosaicismconfined placental mosaicismcytotrophoblastmesenchymenon-invasive prenatal screeningtrue fetal mosaicismuniparental disomy

Identifiers

PMID26237479
PMCPMC4449651
OpenAlexW2026015523

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.