ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2019
Chromosomal aberrations in pregnancy and fetal loss: Insight on the effect of consanguinity, review of 1625 cases.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of Pregnancies with Absent or Hypoplastic Fetal Nasal Bone: A Retrospective Analysis of Prenatal Findings and Perinatal Outcomes.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Towards solving the genetic diagnosis odyssey in Iranian patients with congenital anomalies.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Antimüllerian hormone (AMH) and age as predictors of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) cycle outcomes and blastocyst quality on day 5 in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- Article
- Identifying the causes of recurrent pregnancy loss in consanguineous couples using whole exome sequencing on the products of miscarriage with no chromosomal abnormalities.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Chromosomal aberrations in pregnancy and fetal loss: Insight on the effect of consanguinity, review of 1625 cases.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 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
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPregnancy loss affects 10%-15% of pregnancies and is caused by several factors, maternal and fetal. Most common cause is chromosomal aneuploidy and has traditionally been detected by karyotyping product of conception and/or fetal tissue. In recent years, array comparative genomic hybridization (a-CGH) has been used because of its higher detection and lower failure rates.
methodsDNA was extracted from 1625 products of abortion or fetal tissue. In 1,104 cases both quantitative fluorescent-polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) and a-CGH, and in 521 cases only a-CGH, was performed.
resultsThe detection rate using QF-PCR and a-CGH is 20% compared to 12.7%, overall, and 15.7%, excluding failed samples, by karyotypes in our center. QF-PCR and a-CGH failed in 1.9% of cases, while the failure rate for karyotypes was 20.1%. The difference of detection and failure rates is significant (p-value < 0.001 and p-value < 0.001 respectively). Unexpectedly we also found a significant difference in frequency of imbalances in related versus unrelated couples. (χ
conclusionIt is highly likely that the pregnancy loss in consanguineous couples is caused by other genetic and immune mechanisms. It is plausible that, through the same mechanism by which single gene disorders have a higher prevalence of manifesting disease in consanguineous couples, they can cause lethal genetic disorders leading to pregnancy loss and intra-uterine fetal death (IUFD) in these couples. Our findings suggest that this is a matter for further study as it will greatly influence the approach to counseling and managing consanguineous couples with pregnancy loss.
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.