ReviewBiomedicine hub
Noninvasive Prenatal Testing - When Is It Advantageous to Apply.
Review in Biomedicine hub. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- A retrospective analysis of 6942 amniocentesis cases.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): A Paradigm Shift in Prenatal Care.International journal of preventive medicine · 2025Review
- Advancements of non-invasive prenatal testing: the role of obstetricians.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- The Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Potential of Cell-Free DNA with a Special Focus on COVID-19 and Other Viral Infections.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Retinitis Pigmentosa: Current Clinical Management and Emerging Therapies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in Germany.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- False-positives and false-negatives in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): what can we learn from a meta-analyses on > 750,000 tests?Molecular cytogenetics · 2022Article
- Case Report: Two cases of apparent discordance between non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and amniocentesis resulting in feto-placental mosaicism of trisomy 21. Issues in diagnosis, investigation and counselling.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Novel method of real-time PCR-based screening for common fetal trisomies.BMC medical genomics · 2021Article
- Performance of non-invasive prenatal testing for foetal chromosomal abnormalities in 1048 twin pregnancies.Molecular cytogenetics · 2021Article
- A placental trisomy 2 detected by NIPT evolved in a fetal small Supernumerary Marker Chromosome (sSMC).Molecular cytogenetics · 2021Article
- Chromosome Y as a marker for sex discrepancies in patients with organ transplants: a case report.Molecular cytogenetics · 2021Article
- Non-invasive Prenatal Testing, What Patients Do Not Learn, May Be Due to Lack of Specialist Genetic Training by Gynecologists and Obstetricians?Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
- Non-invasive prenatal test to screen common trisomies in twin pregnancies.Molecular cytogenetics · 2020Article
- Sequencing Shorter cfDNA Fragments Decreases the False Negative Rate of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Regarding the rights and duties of Clinical Laboratory Geneticists in genetic healthcare systems; results of a survey in over 50 countries.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- Recent developments in genetics and medically assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applications.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2018Review
- Recent developments in genetics and medically-assisted reproduction: from research to clinical applicationsHuman reproduction open · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nowadays it is common sense in obstetrics that an increased risk for pregnancy loss due to invasive testing does not exist. Nonetheless, noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a hot topic, even though this approach does not provide a reduction of unintentionally induced abortions. NIPT has a number of shortcuts which are highlighted in this review, including: (1) in NIPT placental rather than fetal DNA is studied, (2) NIPT fails in 2-6% of cases, and (3) trisomy 21 accounts for only ∼50% of existing chromosomal aberrations. Thus, we agree with the literature that NIPT is a fascinating possibility to gain information on unborn life from minimal amounts of DNA. However, it remains a pure risk estimation test directed towards the detection of specific chromosomal abnormalities from peripheral blood of the pregnant woman. It is important to highlight that families buying this test, and getting a normal result, may be provided with a false sense of security. Thus, careful and comprehensive genetic counselling should be performed before the test is offered, and should include a clear explanation of the advantages and disadvantages, as well as limitations, compared to other methods.
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.