ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2017
Recommended practice for laboratory reporting of non-invasive prenatal testing of trisomies 13, 18 and 21: a consensus opinion.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- NIPT of Maternal Plasma-Originated cfDNA: Applications and Guide for the Implementation.The application of clinical genetics · 2025Article
- Review
- Consequences of imprecision in fetal fraction estimation on performance of cell-free DNA screening for Down syndrome.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Article
- Factors Affecting the Fetal Fraction in Noninvasive Prenatal Screening: A Review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Review
- Fetal fraction and noninvasive prenatal testing: What clinicians need to know.Prenatal diagnosis · 2020Review
- TRIDENT-2: National Implementation of Genome-wide Non-invasive Prenatal Testing as a First-Tier Screening Test in the Netherlands.American journal of human genetics · 2019Article
- Adherence of cell-free DNA noninvasive prenatal screens to ACMG recommendations.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019Article
- Ensuring high standards for the delivery of NIPT world-wide: Development of an international external quality assessment scheme.Prenatal diagnosis · 2019Article
- Application of next-generation sequencing technology to precision medicine in cancer: joint consensus of the Tumor Biomarker Committee of the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology.Cancer biology & medicine · 2019Article
- European guidelines for constitutional cytogenomic analysis.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Review
- Recommended practice for laboratory reporting of non-invasive prenatal testing of trisomies 13, 18 and 21: a consensus opinion.Prenatal diagnosis · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for trisomies 13, 18 and 21 is used worldwide. Laboratory reports should provide clear, concise results with test limitations indicated, yet no national or local guidelines are currently available. Here, we aim to present minimum best practice guidelines.
methodsAll laboratories registered in the three European quality assurance schemes for molecular and cytogenetics were invited to complete an online survey focused on services provided for NIPT and non-invasive prenatal diagnosis. Laboratories delivering NIPT for aneuploidy were asked to submit two example reports; one high and one low risk result. Reports were reviewed for content and discussed at a meeting of laboratory providers and clinicians held at the ISPD 2016 conference in Berlin.
resultsOf the 122 laboratories that responded, 50 issued reports for NIPT and 43 of these submitted sample reports. Responses and reports were discussed by 72 attendees at the meeting. Consensus opinion was determined in several areas and used to develop best practice guidelines for reporting of NIPT results.
conclusionsAcross Europe, there is considerable variation in reporting NIPT results. Here, we describe minimum best practice guidelines, which will be distributed to European laboratories, and reports audited in subsequent external quality assurance cycles. © 2017 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.