ArticleScientific reports2016
NIPTRIC: an online tool for clinical interpretation of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) results.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cell-free DNA screening for sex chromosome aneuploidy in 67,099 pregnancies: A retrospective analysis.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Non-invasive Prenatal Testing in Pregnancies Following Assisted Reproduction.Current genomics · 2022Review
- 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
- Article
- The Optimal Cutoff Value of Z-scores Enhances the Judgment Accuracy of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- PREFACE: In silico pipeline for accurate cell-free fetal DNA fraction prediction.Prenatal diagnosis · 2019Article
- Analysis of the accuracy of Z-scores of non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal Trisomies 13, 18, and 21 that employs the ion proton semiconductor sequencing platform.Molecular cytogenetics · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To properly interpret the result of a pregnant woman's non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT), her a priori risk must be taken into account in order to obtain her personalised a posteriori risk (PPR), which more accurately expresses her true likelihood of carrying a foetus with trisomy. Our aim was to develop a tool for laboratories and clinicians to calculate easily the PPR for genome-wide NIPT results, using diploid samples as a control group. The tool takes the a priori risk and Z-score into account. Foetal DNA percentage and coefficient of variation can be given default settings, but actual values should be used if known. We tested the tool on 209 samples from pregnant women undergoing NIPT. For Z-scores < 5, the PPR is considerably higher at a high a priori risk than at a low a priori risk, for NIPT results with the same Z-score, foetal DNA percentage and coefficient of variation. However, the PPR is effectively independent under all conditions for Z-scores above 6. A high PPR for low a priori risks can only be reached at Z-scores > 5. Our online tool can assist clinicians in understanding NIPT results and conveying their true clinical implication to pregnant women, because the PPR is crucial for individual counselling and decision-making.
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.