ArticleThe New England journal of medicine2017
Supporting Women's Autonomy in Prenatal Testing.
Article in The New England journal of medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Facilitating informed choice about non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis of women's experiences.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Pooled it
- Time for a New Norm: Experiences of 'Being Informed' and 'Having Choice' for Prenatal Screening for Chromosomal Conditions: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- The Current State and Challenges of Clinical Ethics Consultation for Prenatal Diagnosis: A Qualitative Study of Committee Employee Perspectives in China.Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
- External Quality Assessment of Maternal Serum Levels of Alpha-Fetoprotein, Free Beta-Human Chorionic Gonadotropin, and Unconjugated Estriol in Detecting Down Syndrome and Neural Tube Defects in the Second Trimester of 87 Maternal Serum Samples, Based on 105-139 Days.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022Article
- Implementing Expanded Prenatal Genetic Testing: Should Parents Have Access to Any and All Fetal Genetic Information?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2022Article
- Decision-making for prenatal genetic screening: how will pregnant women navigate a growing number of aneuploidy and carrier screening options?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2021Article
- Supporting Patient Autonomy and Informed Decision-Making in Prenatal Genetic Testing.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020Review
- Prenatal Genetic Screening and Potential Complicity in Abortion: Considerations for Catholic Health Care.The Linacre quarterly · 2020Article
- Genetic Counseling and Genome Sequencing in Pediatric Rare Disease.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2020Review
- Genetic Counselors' Perspectives About Cell-Free DNA: Experiences, Challenges, and Expectations for Obstetricians.Journal of genetic counseling · 2018Article
- Ethical and counseling challenges in prenatal exome sequencing.Prenatal diagnosis · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.