ArticleInternational journal of molecular and cellular medicine2017
Prenatal Diagnosis of Mosaic Tetrasomy 18p in a Case without Sonographic Abnormalities.
Article in International journal of molecular and cellular medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with ultrasound soft markers: A retrospective single-center comparative study with karyotyping.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Variable degree of mosaicism for tetrasomy 18p in phenotypically discordant monozygotic twins-Diagnostic implications.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Small supernumerary marker chromosomes (sSMC) are still a major problem in clinical cytogenetics as they cannot be identified or characterized unambiguously by conventional cytogenetics alone. On the other hand, and perhaps more importantly in prenatal settings, there is a challenging situation for counseling how to predict the risk for an abnormal phenotype, especially in cases with a
Indexed as
Identifiers
28868271PMC5568194W2612959294What 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.