Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27846804›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genetics2016

Clinical utility of array comparative genomic hybridisation in prenatal setting.

Luca Lovrecic, Ziga Iztok Remec, Marija Volk, Gorazd Rudolf, Karin Writzl, Borut Peterlin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Genomic study of severe fetal anomalies and discovery of GREB1L mutations in renal agenesis.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luca LovrecicClinical Institute of Medical Genetics, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slajmerjeva 3, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia. lucalovrecic@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4119-9530
Ziga Iztok RemecClinical Institute of Medical Genetics, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slajmerjeva 3, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Marija VolkClinical Institute of Medical Genetics, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slajmerjeva 3, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Gorazd RudolfClinical Institute of Medical Genetics, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slajmerjeva 3, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Karin WritzlClinical Institute of Medical Genetics, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slajmerjeva 3, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Borut PeterlinClinical Institute of Medical Genetics, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slajmerjeva 3, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Ljubljana University Medical Centre · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of reported study was to evaluate the clinical utility of prenatal microarray testing for submicroscopic genomic imbalances in routine prenatal settings and to stratify the findings according to the type of fetal ultrasound anomaly.

methodsFrom July 2012 to October 2015 chromosomal microarray testing was performed in 218 fetuses with varying indications for invasive prenatal diagnosis: abnormal karyotype, ultrasound anomalies, pathogenic variant in previous pregnancy or carriership in a parent.

resultsThe detection rate in the group of fetuses with ultrasound anomalies was 10,0% for pathogenic copy number variants (CNVs), five of them being larger than 8 Mb and expected to be seen on prenatal karyotype. If only those pathogenic CNVs below the classical karyotype resolution are considered, chromosomal microarray testing provided an additional 7,7% diagnostic yield in here reported series. When stratified according to the ultrasound anomalies, the highest percentage of pathogenic CNVs were detected in the group of fetuses with multiple congenital anomalies (16,7%) and lowest in the group of isolated in utero growth restriction (6,3%). In the group of cases with isolated increased nuchal translucency we identified a small interstitial deletion of 16p24.1 involving FOXF1 gene. Prenatal aCGH also provided important insights into cases with seemingly balanced chromosomal rearrangements found on prenatal karyotype, where additional pathogenic CNV were discovered.

conclusionPrenatal chromosomal microarray testing significantly increases the diagnostic yield when compared with conventional karyotyping. The highest added value is shown in prenatal diagnostics in fetuses with abnormal ultrasound results. Variants of unknown significance and risk factor CNVs present important challenges and should be discussed with parents in advance, therefore pretest counseling prior to prenatal testing is very important.

Indexed as

Abnormalities, MultipleChromosome AberrationsComparative Genomic HybridizationDNA Copy Number VariationsFemaleForkhead Transcription FactorsHumansKaryotypeMaleOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisUltrasonography, PrenatalForkhead Transcription FactorsFOXF1 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID27846804
PMCPMC5111187
OpenAlexW2554965623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.