ArticleOntario health technology assessment series2019
Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomies 21, 18, and 13, Sex Chromosome Aneuploidies, and Microdeletions: A Health Technology Assessment.
Article 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 34 papers, 7 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Are we properly evaluating genetic and genomic testing? A systematic review of health technology assessment reports.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of Structural Differences on the Modeled Cost-Effectiveness of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Pooled it
- Potential efficacy of digital polymerase chain reaction for non-invasive prenatal screening of autosomal aneuploidies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Pooled it
- Benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening programmes in health economic assessments: the VALENTIA systematic review and qualitative investigation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Carrier Screening Programs for Cystic Fibrosis, Fragile X Syndrome, Hemoglobinopathies and Thalassemia, and Spinal Muscular Atrophy: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2023Pooled it
- Non-invasive prenatal testing for the prenatal screening of sex chromosome aneuploidies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Perspectives of Pregnant People and Clinicians on Noninvasive Prenatal Testing: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-synthesis.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2019Pooled it
- A Fetal Fraction Optimized 106-Plex Digital PCR Assay for Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing of Fetal Trisomy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Balancing How Much We Want to Know with What We Are Willing to Pay: A Comparative Cost Analysis of Prenatal Cytogenetic Testing and Screening Strategies.Fetal diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- Article
- Micrognathia as a Diagnosis Marker for the Prenatal Identification of Edwards Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Addressing the need for economic modelling when designing and reporting a diagnostic testing accuracy study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Current Status of Adoption and Roadmap for the Future.The application of clinical genetics · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
- Future Role of Health Technology Assessment for Genomic Medicine in Oncology: A Canadian Laboratory Perspective.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Expansion of non-invasive prenatal screening to the screening of 10 types of chromosomal anomalies: a cost-effectiveness analysis.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Non-Invasive prenatal testing with rolling circle amplification: Real-world clinical experience in a non-molecular laboratory.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2023Article
- Review
- Prenatal screening tests and prevalence of fetal aneuploidies in a tertiary hospital in Thailand.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPregnant people have a risk of carrying a fetus affected by a chromosomal anomaly. Prenatal screening is offered to pregnant people to assess their risk. 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 the time of writing, NIPT is publicly funded in Ontario for pregnancies at high risk of a chromosomal anomaly.
methodsWe completed a health technology assessment, which included an evaluation of clinical benefits and harms, value for money, budget impact, and patient preferences related to NIPT. We performed a systematic literature search for studies on NIPT for trisomies 21, 18, and 13, sex chromosome aneuploidies, and microdeletions in the average-risk or general population. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of traditional prenatal screening, NIPT as a second-tier test (performed after traditional prenatal screening), and NIPT as a first-tier test (performed instead of traditional prenatal screening). We also conducted a budget impact analysis to estimate the additional costs of funding first-tier NIPT. We interviewed people who had lived experience with NIPT and people living with the conditions NIPT screens for, or their families.
resultsThe pooled clinical sensitivity of NIPT in the average-risk or general population was 99.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 81.8%-99.9%) for trisomy 21, 93.1% (95% CI 75.9%-98.3%) for trisomy 18, and 92.7% (95% CI 81.6%-99.9%) for trisomy 13. The clinical specificity for any trisomy was 99.9% (95% CI 99.8%-99.9%). Compared with traditional prenatal screening, NIPT was more accurate in detecting trisomies 21, 18, and 13, and decreased the need for diagnostic testing. We found limited evidence on NIPT for sex chromosome aneuploidies or microdeletions in the average-risk or general population. Positive NIPT results should be confirmed by diagnostic testing.Compared with traditional prenatal screening, second-tier NIPT detected more affected fetuses, substantially reduced the number of diagnostic tests performed, and slightly reduced the total cost of prenatal screening. Compared with second-tier NIPT, first-tier NIPT detected more affected cases, but also led to more diagnostic tests and additional budget of $35 million per year for average-risk pregnant people in Ontario.People who had undergone NIPT were largely supportive of the test and the benefits of earlier, more accurate results. However, many discussed the need for improved pre- and post-test counselling and raised concerns about the quality of the information they received from health care providers about the conditions NIPT can screen for.
conclusionsNIPT is an effective and safe prenatal screening method for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in the average-risk or general population. Compared with traditional prenatal screening, second-tier NIPT improved the overall performance of prenatal screening and slightly decreased costs. Compared with second-tier NIPT, first-tier NIPT detected more chromosomal anomalies, but resulted in a considerable increase in the total budget. Interviewees were generally positive about NIPT, but they raised concerns about the lack of good informed-choice conversations with primary care providers and the quality of the information they received from health care providers about chromosomal anomalies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30847010PMC6395059What 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.