ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018
Limits to the scope of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): an analysis of the international ethical framework for prenatal screening and an interview study with Dutch professionals.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating imaging and genomics in prenatal Treacher Collins syndrome: evidence for practice and policy.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on and experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review.Human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Defining ethical criteria to guide the expanded use of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening (NIPS): Lessons about severity from preimplantation genetic testing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Reappraising the topology of cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood toward improved prenatal genetic diagnostics.Science advances · 2026Review
- Considering seriousness in preconception carrier screening: a framework to support policy deliberation.Journal of community genetics · 2026Review
- Navigating uncertainty during non-invasive prenatal testing: Genetic counselors' experiences of supporting autonomous reproductive decision-making.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- The Meaning of Screening: Exploring user experience of an aneuploidy screening educational game.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Comparing the Introduction and Implementation of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States: An Integrative Review.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Review
- First and Second-Trimester Screening, for Down's Syndrome: An Umbrella Review on Meta-Analyses.Health science reports · 2025Review
- 'Screening should not be based on ability to pay': Australian healthcare providers' and consumers' perspectives on public funding for non-invasive prenatal testing.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2025Article
- Healthcare professionals' experiences with expanded noninvasive prenatal screening: challenges and solutions.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Blazing the Trail of Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening Expanded Use: Healthcare Providers' Perspectives.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- CffDNA screening for Niemann-pick disease, type C1: a case series.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- The effectiveness of non-invasive prenatal test technology and the prenatal screening algorithm based on various methods for determining foetal aneuploidy.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2023Article
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Reliability, Challenges, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Cell-Free Fetal DNA and Non-Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis of Chromosomopathies and Pediatric Monogenic Diseases: A Critical Appraisal and Medicolegal Remarks.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Views of Canadian healthcare professionals on the future uses of non-invasive prenatal testing: a mixed method study.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Routinization of prenatal screening with the non-invasive prenatal test: pregnant women's perspectives.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Fetal information as shared information: using NIPT to test for adult-onset conditions.Monash bioethics review · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for foetal aneuploidies is currently changing the field of prenatal screening in many countries. As it is non-invasive, safe and accurate, this technique allows for a broad implementation of first-trimester prenatal screening, which raises ethical issues, related, for instance, to informed choice and adverse societal consequences. This article offers an account of a leading international ethical framework for prenatal screening, examines how this framework is used by professionals working in the field of NIPT, and presents ethical guidance for the expansion of the scope of prenatal screening in practice.
methodsA comparative analysis of authoritative documents is combined with 15 semi-structured interviews with professionals in the field of prenatal screening in the Netherlands. Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsThe current ethical framework consists of four pillars: the aim of screening, the proportionality of the test, justice, and societal aspects. Respondents recognised and supported this framework in practice, but expressed some concerns. Professionals felt that pregnant women do not always make informed choices, while this is seen as central to reproductive autonomy (the aim of screening), and that pre-test counselling practices stand in need of improvement. Respondents believed that the benefits of NIPT, and of an expansion of its scope, outweigh the harms (proportionality), which are thought to be acceptable. They felt that the out-of-pocket financial contribution currently required by pregnant women constitutes a barrier to access to NIPT, which disproportionally affects those of a lower socioeconomic status (justice). Finally, professionals recognised but did not share concerns about a rising pressure to test or discrimination of disabled persons (societal aspects).
conclusionsFour types of limits to the scope of NIPT are proposed: NIPT should generate only test outcomes that are relevant to reproductive decision-making, informed choice should be (made) possible through adequate pre-test counselling, the rights of future children should be respected, and equal access should be guaranteed. Although the focus of the interview study is on the Dutch healthcare setting, insights and conclusions can be applied internationally and to other healthcare systems.
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.