Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28726804›Full record

GuidelineGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2017

Diagnostic cytogenetic testing following positive noninvasive prenatal screening results: a clinical laboratory practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).

Athena M Cherry, Yassmine M Akkari, Kimberly M Barr, Hutton M Kearney, Nancy C Rose, Sarah T South, James H Tepperberg, Jeanne M Meck

Open access · bronzeAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Athena M CherryDepartment of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Health Care, Stanford, California, USA.
Yassmine M AkkariCytogenetics and Molecular Pathology, Legacy Laboratory Sciences, Legacy Health, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Kimberly M BarrGenetics Department, Kaiser Permanente, San Francisco, California, USA.
Hutton M KearneyDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Nancy C RoseDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Intermountain Healthcare University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Sarah T SouthAncestry DNA, Lehi, Utah, USA.
James H TepperbergClinical Cytogenetics Laboratory, Laboratory Corporation of America, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Jeanne M MeckCytogenomics, GeneDx, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
Intermountain Healthcare · USKaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center · USLegacy Health · USMayo Clinic · USResearch Triangle Park Foundation · USStanford Health Care · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Disclaimer: ACMG Clinical Laboratory Practice Resources are developed primarily as an educational tool for clinical laboratory geneticists to help them provide quality clinical laboratory genetic services. Adherence to these practice resources is voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. This Clinical Laboratory Practice Resource should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinical laboratory geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinical laboratory geneticists are encouraged to document in the patient's record the rationale for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this Clinical Laboratory Practice Resource. They also are advised to take notice of the date any particular guideline was adopted, and to consider other relevant medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using cell-free DNA has been rapidly adopted into prenatal care. Since NIPS is a screening test, diagnostic testing is recommended to confirm all cases of screen-positive NIPS results. For cytogenetics laboratories performing confirmatory testing on prenatal diagnostic samples, a standardized testing algorithm is needed to ensure that the appropriate testing takes place. This algorithm includes diagnostic testing by either chorionic villi sampling or amniocentesis samples and encompasses chromosome analysis, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and chromosomal microarray.

Indexed as

Cytogenetic AnalysisPrenatal DiagnosisAlgorithmsFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingHumansInfant, NewbornPredictive Value of TestsPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID28726804
OpenAlexW2737968416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.