Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30120476›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2018

Effect of Cell-Free DNA Screening vs Direct Invasive Diagnosis on Miscarriage Rates in Women With Pregnancies at High Risk of Trisomy 21: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Valérie Malan, Laurence Bussières, Norbert Winer, Jean-Philippe Jais, Amandine Baptiste, Marc Le Lorc'h, Caroline Elie, Neil O'Gorman, Nicolas Fries, Véronique Houfflin-Debarge and 5 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02127515 (Non Invasive Prenatal Testing of Down Syndrome From Maternal Blood Sample), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT02127515 nacompletednot on this map

Non Invasive Prenatal Testing of Down Syndrome From Maternal Blood Sample

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisRan2014 to 2016Enrolled2,111ConditionsDown SyndromeArmsNon Invasive Prenatal Testing, Invasive Prenatal Testing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Prenatal evaluation, diagnosis and management of fetal corpus callosal abnormalities: international Delphi consensus.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Cell-Free DNA: Hope and Potential Application in Cancer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Review
  14. New approach for estimating risk of miscarriage after chorionic villus sampling.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2020
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The transformation of medical genetics by clinical genomics: hubris meets humility.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
    Review
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

15 authors.

Valérie MalanDepartment of Histology-Embryology and Cytogenetics, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Laurence BussièresDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Norbert WinerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHU de Nantes, UMR 1280 PHAN (Physiologie des Adaptations Nutritionnelles), INRA University, Nantes, France.
Jean-Philippe JaisParis Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Institut Imagine, Paris, France.
Amandine BaptisteClinical Unit Research/Clinic Investigation Center, Paris Descartes, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Marc Le Lorc'hDepartment of Histology-Embryology and Cytogenetics, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Caroline ElieClinical Unit Research/Clinic Investigation Center, Paris Descartes, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Neil O'GormanParis Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Institut Imagine, Paris, France.
Nicolas FriesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, CHU de Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Véronique Houfflin-DebargeGroupe de Recherche en Obstétrique et Gynécologie (GROG), Paris, France.
Loic SentilhesGroupe de Recherche en Obstétrique et Gynécologie (GROG), Paris, France.
Michel VekemansDepartment of Histology-Embryology and Cytogenetics, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Yves VilleParis Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Institut Imagine, Paris, France.
Laurent J SalomonParis Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Institut Imagine, Paris, France.
SAFE 21 Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) tests are increasingly being offered to women in the first trimester of pregnancies at a high risk of trisomy 21 to decrease the number of required invasive fetal karyotyping procedures and their associated miscarriages. The effect of this strategy has not been evaluated. Objective: To compare the rates of miscarriage following invasive procedures only in the case of positive cfDNA test results vs immediate invasive testing procedures (amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling) in women with pregnancies at high risk of trisomy 21 as identified by first-trimester combined screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted from April 8, 2014, to April 7, 2016, in 57 centers in France among 2111 women with pregnancies with a risk of trisomy 21 between 1 in 5 and 1 in 250 following combined first-trimester screening. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either cfDNA testing followed by invasive testing procedures only when cfDNA tests results were positive (n = 1034) or to receive immediate invasive testing procedures (n = 1017). The cfDNA testing was performed using an in-house validated method based on next-generation sequencing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was number of miscarriages before 24 weeks' gestation. Secondary outcomes included cfDNA testing detection rate for trisomy 21. The primary outcome underwent 1-sided testing; secondary outcomes underwent 2-sided testing. Results: Among 2051 women who were randomized and analyzed (mean age, 36.3 [SD, 5.0] years), 1997 (97.4%) completed the trial. The miscarriage rate was not significantly different between groups at 8 (0.8%) vs 8 (0.8%), for a risk difference of -0.03% (1-sided 95% CI, -0.68% to ∞; P = .47). The cfDNA detection rate for trisomy 21 was 100% (95% CI, 87.2%-100%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with pregnancies at high risk of trisomy 21, offering cfDNA screening, followed by invasive testing if cfDNA test results were positive, compared with invasive testing procedures alone, did not result in a significant reduction in miscarriage before 24 weeks. The study may have been underpowered to detect clinically important differences in miscarriage rates. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02127515.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousAdultAmniocentesisCell-Free Nucleic AcidsChorionic Villi SamplingChromosome DisordersDown SyndromeFemaleFetal DeathGenetic TestingHumansLive BirthPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePregnancy Trimester, SecondRisk FactorsCell-Free Nucleic Acids

Identifiers

PMID30120476
PMCPMC6583003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.