Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26879922›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2016

The Integration of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening into the Existing Prenatal Paradigm: a Survey of Current Genetic Counseling Practice.

Emily Suskin, Laura Hercher, Kathleen Erskine Aaron, Komal Bajaj

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Emily SuskinDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, 1695 Eastchester Road, Suite 301, Bronx, New York, NY, 10461, USA. esuskin@gm.slc.edu.
Laura HercherThe Joan H. Marks Graduate Program in Human Genetics, Sarah Lawrence College, Bronxville, Bronxville, NY, USA.
Kathleen Erskine AaronDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, 1695 Eastchester Road, Suite 301, Bronx, New York, NY, 10461, USA.
Komal BajajDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Medical Center, 1695 Eastchester Road, Suite 301, Bronx, New York, NY, 10461, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since its introduction four years ago, noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy (NIPS) has been widely adopted as a screening tool for women at a high risk for fetal aneuploidy. As use expands into the general population, questions arise concerning the integration of NIPS into preexisting screening paradigms. This study aims to examine the use of NIPS in current practice among prenatal counselors, predominantly in the United States, in order to inform strategies for the optimal use of both new and existing screening techniques. We electronically surveyed 208 members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors to ascertain how NIPS is currently being used. Genetic counselors were also queried as to the advantages and disadvantages of offering NIPS to all patients regardless of a priori risk. Results indicate substantial variation in practice regarding which patients are offered NIPS and how counselors have incorporated this technology into existing screening routines. The majority of participants report offering NIPS in conjunction with another method of screening for fetal aneuploidy, indicating that NIPS is being used as an addition rather than as a replacement. These screening methods primarily include nuchal translucency (NT) (45.1 %, n = 78) and first trimester serum screening, with or without an NT (19.7 %, n = 34). Furthermore, the majority report that they would be concerned about losing the clinical value of an NT in a complete transition to NIPS (85.4 %, n = 164). Counselors are evenly split on the merits of expanding the use of NIPS to the general population (con: 55.3 %, n = 105; pro: 44.7 %, n = 85). The lack of consensus suggests that updated practice guidelines might benefit counselors. In addition, respondents emphasized the need to better educate patients and providers about the risks, benefits, and limitations of the test.

Indexed as

CounselorsAneuploidyFemaleFetusGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingHumansPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisSurveys and QuestionnairesAneuploidyCell-free DNAGenetic counselingNoninvasive prenatal screeningNon-invasive prenatal testingPrenatal screening

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.