ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2014
A 26-Year Experience in Chorionic Villus Sampling Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chorionic Villus Sampling in the Era of Genomic Medicine: A Gateway to Early and Personalized Prenatal Diagnosis.The application of clinical genetics · 2026Article
- Combining PCR to detect junction fragments and deleted exons in the prenatal diagnosis of BMD can effectively identify maternal cell contamination.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This report describes the trends of chorionic villus sampling (CVS) referred for prenatal genetic diagnosis in the past two and a half decades in a Portuguese Center. Our cohort of 491 CVS was mostly performed by the transcervical method at the 12th gestational week. Data collected within the framework of this study relate to the following: sampling method, referral reason versus abnormality and incidence of procedure-related pregnancy loss, that declined to about 0.5% over the last 15 years. The year 2000 represented a change in referral reasons for chorionic tissue collection, shifting from almost exclusively for cytogenetic testing to an increasing number of molecular tests for monogenic disorders. Herein, success rates as well as cytogenetic and/or molecular DNA results are presented. These latter include not only tests for several monogenic disorders, but also aneuploidy and maternal cell contamination screening. This retrospective analysis reiterates that CVS is a safe and reliable first trimester technique for prenatal diagnosis in high genetic risk pregnancies.
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.