Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27467454›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2016

Noninvasive prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy, 2016 update: a position statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Anthony R Gregg, Brian G Skotko, Judith L Benkendorf, Kristin G Monaghan, Komal Bajaj, Robert G Best, Susan Klugman, Michael S Watson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readConsensus Statement
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 252 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
252citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
187.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

252 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 690 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Identifying Strategies to Improve Shared Decision Making for Pregnant Patients' Decisions about Prenatal Genetic Screens and Diagnostic Tests.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

192 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Anthony R GreggDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Brian G SkotkoDepartment of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School and Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Judith L BenkendorfAmerican College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Kristin G MonaghanGeneDx, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
Komal BajajNew York City Health + Hospitals/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Robert G BestUniversity of South Carolina School of Medicine, Greenville Health System, Greenville, South Carolina, USA.
Susan KlugmanMontefiore Medical Center, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Michael S WatsonAmerican College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
American College of Medical Genetics · USAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USMontefiore Medical Center · USPrisma Health · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

disclaimerThis statement is designed primarily as an educational resource for clinicians to help them provide quality medical services. Adherence to this statement is completely voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. This statement should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinician should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinicians are encouraged to document the reasons for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this statement. Clinicians also are advised to take notice of the date this statement was adopted and to consider other medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.Noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA (NIPS) has been rapidly integrated into prenatal care since the initial American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) statement in 2013. New evidence strongly suggests that NIPS can replace conventional screening for Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes across the maternal age spectrum, for a continuum of gestational age beginning at 9-10 weeks, and for patients who are not significantly obese. This statement sets forth a new framework for NIPS that is supported by information from validation and clinical utility studies. Pretest counseling for NIPS remains crucial; however, it needs to go beyond discussions of Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes. The use of NIPS to include sex chromosome aneuploidy screening and screening for selected copy-number variants (CNVs) is becoming commonplace because there are no other screening options to identify these conditions. Providers should have a more thorough understanding of patient preferences and be able to educate about the current drawbacks of NIPS across the prenatal screening spectrum. Laboratories are encouraged to meet the needs of providers and their patients by delivering meaningful screening reports and to engage in education. With health-care-provider guidance, the patient should be able to make an educated decision about the current use of NIPS and the ramifications of a positive, negative, or no-call result.Genet Med 18 10, 1056-1065.

Indexed as

AneuploidyGenetics, MedicalAdultFemaleFetusGenetic TestingGenomicsGestational AgeHumansMaternal AgePregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisUnited States

Identifiers

PMID27467454
OpenAlexW2485046853

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.