ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine2020
Impact of Emerging Technologies in Prenatal Genetic Counseling.
Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 2020. 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.
- Review
- An overview of the International Consensus Statement on achondroplasia.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Review
- GenTIGS: a database empowering research and clinical insights on rare genetic disorders with an Indian perspective.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Prenatal diagnosis of rare genetic disorders: fourteen years' experience of a tertiary genetic centre from India.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- Palliative Care in the Delivery Room: Challenges and Recommendations.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Family-Centered Management of Birth Defects Diagnosis and Referral in Hospital Settings in Florida.Maternal and child health journal · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For decades, prenatal testing has been offered to evaluate pregnancies for genetic conditions. In recent years, the number of testing options and range of testing capabilities has dramatically increased. Because of the risks associated with invasive diagnostic testing, research has focused on the detection of genetic conditions through screening technologies such as cell-free DNA. Screening for aneuploidy, copy number variants, and monogenic disorders is clinically available using a sample of maternal blood, but limited data exist on the accuracy of some of these testing options. Additional research is needed to examine the accuracy and utility of screening for increasingly rare conditions. As the breadth of prenatal genetic testing options continues to expand, patients, clinical providers, laboratories, and researchers need to find collaborative means to validate and introduce new testing technologies responsibly. Adequate validation of prenatal tests and effective integration of emerging technologies into prenatal care will become even more important once prenatal treatments for genetic conditions become available.
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.