ArticleMedicine2018
Chromosomal microarray analysis in the prenatal diagnosis of orofacial clefts: Experience from a single medical center in mainland China.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Expanding the Genetic Landscape of Craniofacial Anomalies Through Transcriptome-Wide Association Studies.Research square · 2025Article
- Expanding the Genetic Landscape of Craniofacial Anomalies Through Transcriptome-Wide Association Studies.Research square · 2025Article
- Prenatal genetic findings using karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis in the first-occurrence typical orofacial clefts.Molecular biology reports · 2025Article
- Exome sequencing improves genetic diagnosis of congenital orofacial clefts.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Cleft Lip and/or Cleft Palate: Prenatal Accuracy, Postnatal Course, and Long-Term Outcomes.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- Identification of genomic imbalances in oral clefts.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the value of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for the prenatal diagnosis of orofacial clefts.A total of 143 fetuses with oral clefts were detected by ultrasound during prenatal exam between 2012 and 2017 in our center. We categorized the cases into 4 groups: isolated cleft lip (CL) (CL only), isolated cleft palate (CP only), isolated cleft lip and palate (CLP) (CLP only), and syndromic CLP (combined with other malformations). The CMA was performed in all cases, while 139 fetuses were referred for G-banded chromosome analysis.There were 42 male and 10 female fetuses were born, with a sex ratio of 4.2:1. The isolated CLP group accounted for 74.1% (106/143) of cases, while the isolated CL, isolated CP, and syndromic CP groups accounted for 13.9% (20/143), 2% (3/143), and 10% (14/143), respectively. A total of 11 fetuses had pathogenic copy number variants (CNVs, 7.7%), including isolated CP (1/143, 0.7%), isolated CLP (5/143, 3.5%), and syndromic CLP (5/143, 3.5%). Compared with the CMA results, 5 fetuses were found to have an abnormal karyotype (5/139, 3.6%). However, no abnormalities were found in either karyotype analysis or CMA in the isolated CL group.CMA is a valuable tool for identifying submicroscopic chromosomal abnormalities in the prenatal diagnosis of oral clefts. An excellent outcome can be expected for fetuses with isolated CL that are negative for chromosomal abnormalities.
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.