ArticleAJP reports2016
Obstetrician and Gynecologist Utilization of the Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Expanded Option.
Article in AJP reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on and experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review.Human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Knowledge and Attitudes of Medical and Nursing Students toward Noninvasive Prenatal Testing and Fetal Anomaly Scan.Annals of African medicine · 2026Article
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Reliability, Challenges, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomies 21, 18, and 13, Sex Chromosome Aneuploidies, and Microdeletions: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) enables the detection of common fetal aneuploidies such as trisomy 21, trisomy 18, trisomy 13, and sex chromosome abnormalities via analysis of cell-free fetal DNA circulating in maternal serum. In October 2013, the option to screen for additional trisomies and select microdeletion syndromes became clinically available. The complex testing methods, oftentimes unclear clinical utility of results, and lack of professional guidelines renders it challenging for clinicians to keep abreast of evolving prenatal screening options. We undertook a survey to assess physicians' awareness of, utilization of, and attitudes toward the expanded NIPT option. Study Design Obstetricians attending hospital service meetings in the Houston Texas Medical Center completed an anonymous survey regarding the utilization patterns of expanded NIPT. Results Overall, 85 obstetricians were surveyed. While all respondents indicated awareness of NIPT in its traditional form, 75% (64/85) were aware of the expanded testing option, and 14% (12/85) reported having ordered the expanded NIPT option. A total of 91% (77/85) expressed that practitioners need more information regarding the screening. Conclusion Based on these findings and the fluid landscape of prenatal screening, education, and reeducation of health care professionals is imperative to ensure responsible patient counseling, informed consent, and appropriate posttest management.
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.