Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31660889›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019

Psychological and social consequences of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a scoping review.

Valérie Labonté, Dima Alsaid, Britta Lang, Joerg J Meerpohl

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Valérie LabontéInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Breisacherstr. 153, 79110, Freiburg, Germany. labonte@ifem.uni-freiburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6646-3126
Dima AlsaidInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Breisacherstr. 153, 79110, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0124-0239
Britta LangClinical Trial Unit, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Elsässer Str. 2, 79110, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2113-4708
Joerg J MeerpohlInstitute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Breisacherstr. 153, 79110, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1333-5403
University of Freiburg · DE

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GP1771B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomics-based noninvasive prenatal tests (NIPT) allow screening for chromosomal anomalies such as Down syndrome (trisomy 21). The technique uses cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) that circulates in the maternal blood and is detectable from 5 weeks of gestation onwards. Parents who choose to undergo this relatively new test (introduced in 2011) might be aware of its positive features (i.e. clinical safety and ease of use); however, they might be less aware of the required decisions and accompanying internal conflicts following a potential positive test result. To show the evidence on psychological and social consequences of the use of NIPT, we conducted a scoping review.

methodsWe systematically searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL (EBSCO) and PsychINFO (EBSCO)) for studies that investigated the psychological or social consequences of the use of NIPT by pregnant women or expecting parents. The search was limited to studies published between 2011 and August 8, 2018. We identified 2488 studies and, after removal of duplicates, screened 2007 titles and abstracts, and then assessed 99 articles in full text (both screenings were done independently in duplicate). We included 7 studies in our analysis.

resultsFive studies assessed anxiety, psychological distress and/or decisional regret among women with validated psychological tests like the Spielberger State Trait-Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Pregnancy-Related Anxiety Questionnaire-Revised (PRAQ-R), the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) or the Decisional Regret Scale (DRS). Two studies assessed women's experiences with and feelings after NIPT in interviews or focus groups. The included studies were heterogeneous in location, study setting, inclusion criteria, outcome assessment, and other characteristics.

conclusionsOnly few studies on psychological consequences of NIPT have been identified. The studies assessed only short-term psychological consequences of NIPT at baseline and/or after receiving the results or after giving birth. Studies show that short term anxiety decreased when women received negative NIPT results and that decisional regret was generally low. We could not identify studies on long term consequences of NIPT, as well as studies on women's partners' short and long term outcomes, nor on social consequences of NIPT.

Indexed as

Prenatal DiagnosisChromosome DisordersFemaleGenetic TestingHumansPregnancyPsychologyAnxietyCell-free fetal DNAcffDNADown syndromeNIPTNon-invasive prenatal testingPregnancyTrisomy

Identifiers

PMID31660889
PMCPMC6819451
OpenAlexW2982602633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.