ArticleMolecular cytogenetics2019
Genetic analysis of products of conception using a HLPA/SNP-array strategy.
Article in Molecular cytogenetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- How Are SNP-Array, Karyotyping, and FISH Applied in Prenatal Practice? A Focus on Diagnosis of Mosaicism Involving the Sex Chromosomes.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Analysis of chromosomal aberrations in early pregnancy loss using high-throughput ligation-dependent probe amplification and single tandem repeats.Molecular cytogenetics · 2025Article
- Genetic impact of copy number variations on congenital heart defects: Current insights and future directions.Global medical genetics · 2025Review
- Serum Zn and Ca correlate with false positive non-invasive prenatal test results.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Clinical Significance of Application of Chromosomal Karyotyping of Villus Tissues.International journal of women's health · 2023Article
- The implication of chromosomal abnormalities in the surgical outcomes of Chinese pediatric patients with congenital heart disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- A fetal fraction enrichment method reduces false negatives and increases test success rate of fetal chromosome aneuploidy detection in early pregnancy loss.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Copy Number Variation Analysis of Euploid Pregnancy Loss.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- The Cytogenomic "Theory of Everything": Chromohelkosis May Underlie Chromosomal Instability and Mosaicism in Disease and Aging.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Chromosome Abnormality Detection Rates of QF-PCR in Early Pregnancy Loss.Current health sciences journalArticle
- Usefulness of combined NGS and QF-PCR analysis for product of conception karyotyping.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFetal chromosomal abnormalities was the most frequent cause of miscarriage, and the traditional testing method G-banded karyotyping has limitations. Then high-throughput ligation-dependent probe amplification (HLPA) and single nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP-array) were introduced for genetic analysis on products of conception (POC).
methodsHLPA and SNP-array analysis were combined. POC samples were initially tested using HLPA, followed by SNP-array analysis on samples that were found to be normal by HLPA.
resultsOf the 326 POC samples tested, the overall abnormality rate was 54.6% (178/326), including 44.8% (146/326) chromosomal abnormalities identified by HLPA and 9.8% (32/326) additional chromosomal abnormalities further detected by SNP-array.
conclusionsThe combination of HLPA and SNP-array analysis is an efficient and cost-effective strategy for genetic analysis of POC.
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.