ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2019
Lower detectability of non-invasive prenatal testing compared to prenatal diagnosis in high-risk pregnant women.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding knowledge, perception, and willingness of non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy: a survey among Chinese high-risk pregnant women.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Enrichment of circulating trophoblasts from maternal blood using filtration-based Metacell® technology.PloS one · 2022Article
- Assessment and Clinical Utility of a Non-Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing Technology.Current issues in molecular biology · 2021Article
- The Optimal Cutoff Value of Z-scores Enhances the Judgment Accuracy of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Prenatal diagnosis of cri-du-chat syndrome by SNP array: report of twelve cases and review of the literature.Molecular cytogenetics · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the detectability of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) after prenatal screening to detect foetal chromosomal abnormalities in pregnant women at high risk, and the number of foetal abnormalities could be missed by NIPT.
methodsFrom January 2009 to March 2018, 3,099 pregnant women at high risk for trisomy 21 and 18 according to the results of prenatal serological screening were enrolled in this study. The women underwent amniocentesis at 18-23 weeks, as well as karyotype testing and/or chromosomal microarray analyses (CMA). We assessed the ability of NIPT to detect chromosomal abnormalities.
resultsIn all, 177 (5.7%, 177/3,099) chromosomal abnormalities were identified. These included 129 (72.9%) abnormal numbers of chromosomes, 6 (3.4%) chromosome structural abnormalities, and 42 (23.7%) other abnormalities, including copy number variation, inversions, and chromosome additions/deletions. Of the 177 (70.0%) chromosomal abnormalities, 124 were detected and 53 were missed by NIPT.
conclusionsNIPT could miss 30.0% of the chromosomal abnormalities detected by amniocentesis and cytogenetic testing. This proportion will likely decrease in the future due to further development of NIPT.
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.