ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2019
The continuing saga of patents and non-invasive prenatal testing.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Framing Ethical Concerns and Attitudes towards Human Gene Patents in the Chinese Press.Asian bioethics review · 2020Article
- The continuing saga of patents and non-invasive prenatal testing.Prenatal diagnosis · 2019Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis paper examines the Intellectual Property (IP) landscape for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in three key regions: the United States; Europe, with particular focus on the United Kingdom; and Australia.
methodWe explore the patent law issues against the commercial and healthcare environment in these regions and consider the implications for development and implementation of NIPT.
resultsThere are many patents held by many parties internationally, with litigation over these patents ongoing in many countries. Importantly, there are significant international differences in patent law, with patents invalidated in the USA that remain valid in Europe. Despite the many patents and ongoing litigation, there are multiple providers of testing internationally, and patents do not appear to be preventing patient access to testing for those who can pay out of pocket.
conclusionThe patent situation in NIPT remains in a state of flux, with uncertainty about how patent rights will be conferred in different jurisdictions, and how patents might affect clinical access. However, patents are unlikely to result in a monopoly for a single provider, with several providers and testing technologies, including both public and private sector entities, likely to remain engaged in delivery of NIPT. However, the effects on access in public healthcare systems are more complex and need to be monitored.
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.