SynthesisOntario health technology assessment series2019
Perspectives of Pregnant People and Clinicians on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-synthesis.
Synthesis in Ontario health technology assessment series, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Equity in prenatal healthcare services globally: an umbrella review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Pooled it
- Does an educational video for aneuploidy screening improve informed choice among pregnant women? A randomised controlled trial.Prenatal diagnosis · 2023Trial
- Navigating uncertainty during non-invasive prenatal testing: Genetic counselors' experiences of supporting autonomous reproductive decision-making.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Discomfort in the Unexpected: A Mixed-Methods Study on Australian Clinicians' Experiences of Explaining Prenatal Screening Results.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Article
- Public Perspectives Around Prenatal Screening of Chromosomal Abnormalities: A Focus Group Study Comparing Metropolitan and Rural/Regional Areas in Australia.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2025Article
- Experiences of perinatal genetic screening for people from migrant and refugee backgrounds: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- Australian Preferences for Prenatal Screening: A Discrete Choice Experiment Comparing Metropolitan and Rural/Regional Areas.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Towards a Responsible Implementation of NIPT as a First-Tier Test in Canada: Decision-Makers' Perspectives.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Patient perspectives on pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing for antidepressant prescribing in primary care: a qualitative description study.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Patient experiences with prenatal cell-free DNA screening in a safety net setting.Prenatal diagnosis · 2024Article
- The expressivist argument for recent policy changes regarding the provision of prenatal testing in Japan.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2024Article
- Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): is routinization problematic?BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Societal implications of expanded universal carrier screening: a scoping review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Clinician views and experiences of non-invasive prenatal genetic screening tests in Australia.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2022Article
- Informed choice of pregnant women regarding noninvasive prenatal testing in Korea: a cross-sectional study.Korean journal of women health nursing · 2022Article
- Routinization of prenatal screening with the non-invasive prenatal test: pregnant women's perspectives.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Non-invasive prenatal test uptake in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods.Prenatal diagnosis · 2021Article
- Performance of a universal prenatal screening program incorporating cell-free fetal DNA analysis in Ontario, Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021Article
- The impact of insurance on equitable access to non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPT): private insurance may not pay.Journal of community genetics · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pregnant people have a risk of carrying a fetus affected by a chromosomal anomaly. Prenatal screening is offered to pregnant people to assess their risk. In recent years, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been introduced clinically, which uses the presence of circulating cell-free fetal DNA in the maternal blood to quantify the risk of a chromosomal anomaly. At present, NIPT is publicly funded for pregnancies at high risk of a chromosomal anomaly, and available to pregnant people at average risk if they choose to pay out of pocket. Methods: We performed a systematic review of primary, empirical qualitative research that describes the experiences and perspectives of pregnant people, their families, clinicians, and others with lived experience relevant to NIPT. We were interested in the beliefs, experiences, preferences, and perspectives of these groups. We analyzed the evidence available in 36 qualitative and mixed-methods studies using the integrative technique of qualitative meta-synthesis. Results: Most people (pregnant people, clinicians, and others with relevant lived experience) said that NIPT offered important information to pregnant people and their partners. Most people were very enthusiastic about widening access to NIPT because it can provide information about chromosomal anomalies quite early in pregnancy, with relatively high accuracy, and without risk of procedure-related pregnancy loss. However, many groups cautioned that widening access to NIPT may result in routinization of this test, causing potential harm to pregnant people, their families, the health care system, people living with disabilities, and society as a whole. Widened logistical, financial, emotional, and informational access may be perceived as a benefit, but it can also confer harm on various groups. Many of these challenges echo historical critiques of other forms of prenatal testing, with some issues mitigated or exacerbated by the particular features of NIPT. Conclusions: Noninvasive prenatal testing offers significant benefit for pregnant people but may also be associated with potential harms related to informed decision-making, inequitable use, social pressure to test, and reduced support for people with disabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30838086PMC6398533W2981887028What 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.