ArticleJournal of genetics2019
Cytogenetic microarray in structurally normal and abnormal foetuses: a five year experience elucidating increasing acceptance and clinical utility.
Article in Journal of genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- The difference between karyotype analysis and chromosome microarray for mosaicism of aneuploid chromosomes in prenatal diagnosis.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of prenatal cytogenetic microarray (CMA) in structurally normal and abnormal foetuses and record the acceptance rate of CMA for prenatal diagnosis over a course of five year. In 128 structurally normal and abnormal foetuses, CMA was performed along with foetal karyotype, after exclusion of aneuploidy by quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction. The microarray was able to detect the pathogenic variants in 5.5% cases; the diagnostic yield in structurally abnormal foetuses was 8.8% and 4.7% in foetuses with a high aneuploidy risk. Balanced and unbalanced translocations, and low level mosaicism were detected. Reanalysis of variants of uncertain significance identified pathogenic variant. The study shows higher diagnostic yield in structurally abnormal cases, the importance of foetal karyotype and reanalysis in microarray. The acceptance rate of prenatal CMA increased five-fold over a period of five year.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30945666W2911697725What 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.