ArticleMolecular cytogenetics2018
Application of chromosomal microarray to investigate genetic causes of isolated fetal growth restriction.
Article in Molecular cytogenetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Incremental Yield of CMA Over Karyotype in Fetal Growth Restriction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Pooled it
- Severe Early-Onset Fetal Growth Restriction: The Yield of Antenatal and Postnatal Genetic Testing.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Comparative Diagnostic Assessment of Karyotyping, Microarray, and Whole Exome Sequencing in Genetically Associated Fetal Growth Restriction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Utility of whole exome sequencing in the evaluation of isolated fetal growth restriction in normal chromosomal microarray analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- The assessing of clinical relevance of chromosomal microarray analysis in the prenatal diagnosis of fetal growth restriction.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Long-Term Neurologic Consequences following Fetal Growth Restriction: The Impact on Brain Reserve.Developmental neuroscience · 2025Review
- Contribution of uniparental disomy to fetal growth restriction: a whole-exome sequencing series in a prenatal setting.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Fetuses with Ultrasound Abnormalities.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- Chromosome microarray analysis combined with karyotype analysis is a powerful tool for the detection in pregnant women with high-risk indicators.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Fetal growth restriction: associated genetic etiology and pregnancy outcomes in a tertiary referral center.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Molecular Approaches in Fetal Malformations, Dynamic Anomalies and Soft Markers: Diagnostic Rates and Challenges-Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The Genetic and Clinical Outcomes in Fetuses With Isolated Fetal Growth Restriction: A Chinese Single-Center Retrospective Study.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Highlighting the trajectory from intrauterine growth restriction to future obesity.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Review
- Genetic Background of Fetal Growth Restriction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApplication of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) to investigate the genetic characteristics of fetal growth restriction (FGR) without ultrasonic structural anomalies at 18-32 weeks.
methodsThis study includes singleton fetuses with the estimated fetal weight (EFW) using the formula of Hadlock C below the 10th percentile for gestational age. FGRs without structural anomalies were selected, and the ones at high risk of noninvasive prenatal testing for trisomy 13, 18 and 21 would be excluded. The cases were divided into two groups: early-onset group (< 24
resultsCMA detected 10 pathogenic copy number variants and 2 variant of uncertain significance case. CMA has a 5.5% (7/127) incremental yield of pathogenic chromosomal abnormalities over karyotyping. The positive detected rate was 9.6% (5/52) in early-onset group and 9.3% (7/75) in late-onset group respectively.
conclusionsWhen FGR without structural anomaly is diagnosed before 33 weeks, an invasive prenatal procedure is strongly recommended. CMA can identify a 5.5% (7/127) incremental detection rate of pathogenic chromosomal abnormalities, which would impact clinical management for FGR.
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.