ReviewThe application of clinical genetics2016
Non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal chromosome abnormalities: review of clinical and ethical issues.
Review in The application of clinical genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attitudes About NIPT Routinisation: A Report from a Qualitative Study of 20 UK Healthcare Professionals.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Article
- Understanding Genetic Screening: Harnessing Health Information to Prevent Disease Risks.International journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- The expressivist argument for recent policy changes regarding the provision of prenatal testing in Japan.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2024Article
- The risk of normative bias in reporting empirical research: lessons learned from prenatal screening studies about the prominence of acknowledged limitations.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2023Article
- Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and pregnant women's views on good motherhood: a qualitative study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Enrichment of circulating trophoblasts from maternal blood using laminar microscale vortices.Prenatal diagnosis · 2021Article
- Difficulties of Prenatal Genetic Counseling for a Subsequent Child in a Family With Multiple Genetic Variations.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the Netherlands: An interview study exploring opinions about and experiences with societal pressure, reimbursement, and an expanding scope.Journal of genetic counseling · 2020Article
- Canadian genetic healthcare professionals' attitudes towards discussing private pay options with patients.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Article
- Limits to the scope of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): an analysis of the international ethical framework for prenatal screening and an interview study with Dutch professionals.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- Women's perspectives on the ethical implications of non-invasive prenatal testing: a qualitative analysis to inform health policy decisions.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA (cfDNA screening) was proposed to reduce the number of invasive procedures in current prenatal diagnosis for fetal aneuploidies. We review here the clinical and ethical issues of cfDNA screening. To date, it is not clear how cfDNA screening is going to impact the performances of clinical prenatal diagnosis and how it could be incorporated in real life. The direct marketing to users may have facilitated the early introduction of cfDNA screening into clinical practice despite limited evidence-based independent research data supporting this rapid shift. There is a need to address the most important ethical, legal, and social issues before its implementation in a mass setting. Its introduction might worsen current tendencies to neglect the reproductive autonomy of pregnant women.
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.