ArticleBMC medical genetics2016
Clinical utility of array comparative genomic hybridisation in prenatal setting.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The incremental yield of CMA over karyotype in fetal ventriculomegaly: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Pooled it
- The Incremental Yield of CMA Over Karyotype in Fetal Growth Restriction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Pooled it
- Genetic background of high myopia in children.PloS one · 2024Article
- Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Analysis: Does Increased Resolution Equal Increased Yield?Genes · 2023Article
- Article
- Molecular Approaches in Fetal Malformations, Dynamic Anomalies and Soft Markers: Diagnostic Rates and Challenges-Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Prenatal characterization of a novel invertedClinical case reports · 2021Article
- [Application of Array-based Comparative Genomic Hybridization in the Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetal Chromosomal Aberration in Gravidas with Advanced Age].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2021Article
- Copy number variations in ultrasonically abnormal late pregnancy fetuses with normal karyotypes.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- The frequency of CNVs in a cohort population of consecutive fetuses with congenital anomalies after the termination of pregnancy.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Article
- 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 · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.