ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2016
Trial by Dutch laboratories for evaluation of non-invasive prenatal testing. Part I-clinical impact.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
72 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Nuchal translucency of 3.0-3.4 mm an indication for NIPT or microarray? Cohort analysis and literature review.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2020Pooled it
- Prenatal cell-free DNA screening test failures: a systematic review of failure rates, risks of Down syndrome, and impact of repeat testing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- A rareArchive of clinical cases · 2026Article
- Abnormal Ultrasonography Overcomes NIPT's Inherent Limitations: Revealing Two Cases of NIPT False Negatives Caused by Trisomy 21 Mosaicism and a Literature Review.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Clinical Utility of Opportunistic Genome-Wide cfDNA Prenatal Screening in Intermediate-Risk Pregnancies.Genes · 2025Article
- Comparing the Introduction and Implementation of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States: An Integrative Review.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Review
- Implementation of circulating cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidies.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Understanding genetic variability: exploring large-scale copy number variants through non-invasive prenatal testing in European populations.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- First Trimester Contingent Screening for Aneuploidies with Cell-Free Fetal DNA in Singleton Pregnancies - a Swiss Single Centre Experience.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2024Article
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Reliability, Challenges, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Laboratory performance of genome-wide cfDNA for copy number variants as compared to prenatal microarray.Molecular cytogenetics · 2023Article
- A comprehensive performance analysis of sequence-based within-sample testing NIPT methods.PloS one · 2023Article
- Additional value of advanced ultrasonography in pregnancies with two inconclusive cell-free DNA draws.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Article
- Article
- A Critical Evaluation of Validation and Clinical Experience Studies in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomies 21, 18, and 13 and Monosomy X.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Clinical evaluation of non-invasive prenatal screening in 32,394 pregnancies from Changzhi maternal and child health care hospital of Shanxi China.Journal of medical biochemistry · 2022Article
- Clinical impact of additional findings detected by genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing: Follow-up results of the TRIDENT-2 study.American journal of human genetics · 2022Article
12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical impact of nationwide implementation of genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in pregnancies at increased risk for fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 (TRIDENT study).
methodWomen with elevated risk based on first trimester combined testing (FCT ≥ 1:200) or medical history, not advanced maternal age alone, were offered NIPT as contingent screening test, performed by Dutch University Medical laboratories. We analyzed uptake, test performance, redraw/failure rate, turn-around time and pregnancy outcome.
resultsBetween 1 April and 1 September 2014, 1413/23 232 (6%) women received a high-risk FCT result. Of these, 1211 (85.7%) chose NIPT. One hundred seventy-nine women had NIPT based on medical history. In total, 1386/1390 (99.7%) women received a result, 6 (0.4%) after redraw. Mean turn-around time was 14 days. Follow-up was available in 1376 (99.0%) pregnancies. NIPT correctly predicted 37/38 (97.4%) trisomies 21, 18 or 13 (29/30, 4/4 and 4/4 respectively); 5/1376 (0.4%) cases proved to be false positives: trisomies 21 (n = 2), 18 (n = 1) and 13 (n = 2). Estimated reduction in invasive testing was 62%.
conclusionIntroduction of NIPT in the Dutch National healthcare-funded Prenatal Screening Program resulted in high uptake and a vast reduction of invasive testing. Our study supports offering NIPT to pregnant women at increased risk for fetal trisomy. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. © 2016 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.