Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31709014›Full record

ArticleMolecular cytogenetics2019

Prenatal diagnosis of 4953 pregnant women with indications for genetic amniocentesis in Northeast China.

Rulin Dai, Yang Yu, Qi Xi, Xiaonan Hu, Haibo Zhu, Ruizhi Liu, Ruixue Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rulin DaiDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Prenatal Diagnosis, First Hospital, Jilin University, 71 Xinmin Street, Changchun, 130021 Jilin Province People's Republic of China.
Yang YuDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Prenatal Diagnosis, First Hospital, Jilin University, 71 Xinmin Street, Changchun, 130021 Jilin Province People's Republic of China.
Qi XiDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Prenatal Diagnosis, First Hospital, Jilin University, 71 Xinmin Street, Changchun, 130021 Jilin Province People's Republic of China.
Xiaonan HuDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Prenatal Diagnosis, First Hospital, Jilin University, 71 Xinmin Street, Changchun, 130021 Jilin Province People's Republic of China.
Haibo ZhuDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Prenatal Diagnosis, First Hospital, Jilin University, 71 Xinmin Street, Changchun, 130021 Jilin Province People's Republic of China.
Ruizhi LiuDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Prenatal Diagnosis, First Hospital, Jilin University, 71 Xinmin Street, Changchun, 130021 Jilin Province People's Republic of China.
Ruixue WangDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Prenatal Diagnosis, First Hospital, Jilin University, 71 Xinmin Street, Changchun, 130021 Jilin Province People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-8772-4954
Jilin University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral different technologies are used for prenatal screening procedures and genetic diagnostic technologies. We aimed to investigate the rates of chromosomal abnormalities in cases with different abnormal prenatal indications and to determine the relationships between fetal chromosomal abnormalities and indicators of prenatal abnormalities in Northeast China.

methodsWe evaluated 4953 16- to 23-week singleton gestation cases using amniocentesis and a total of 3583 participants received serological screening. Fetal chromosomal analyses were performed for all samples using fluorescence in situ hybridization and karyotyping.

resultsAmong these samples, 204 (4.12%) had fetal chromosomal abnormalities. A total of 3583 participants received serological screening, among whom 102 (2.85%) exhibited positive results. A total of 309 participants had ultrasonography; 42 (13.6%) of these had abnormalities. Among 97 participants who had non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), 59 (61%) had positive results. Among 1265 participants with advanced maternal age, 78 (6.2%) had abnormal results.

conclusionThe serological screening and NIPT that were included in the prenatal screening methods all had false positive and false negative rates. Although they are both prenatal screening techniques, maternal serum screening cannot be replaced by NIPT. The pregnancy women should accept NIPT in a qualified prenatal diagnostic center. We recommend that pregnant women at high or critical risk undergoing prenatal screening should confirm the fetal karyotype through amniocentesis. Moreover, if women receive a positive result via NIPT, they should not have a pregnancy termination without undergoing further prenatal diagnosis.

Indexed as

Advanced maternal age (AMA)Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)Prenatal diagnosisUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID31709014
PMCPMC6836356
OpenAlexW2985287883

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.