Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32029999›Full record

ReviewJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2020

Medical Genetics for Practicing Obstetrician.

K N Sreelakshmi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

K N SreelakshmiMalnad Hitech Diagnostic Center, Shivamogga, Karnataka India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical genetics has evolved over a decade, and hence, all investigations are available for clinical practice. Many diseases are diagnosed accurately today because of new investigations. These advanced investigations are affordable, accessible and available in day-to-day practice. Hence, there is a need and it is a time for us to understand these advanced technologies. Karyotyping and rapid aneuploidy tests are basic tests, while chromosomal microarray and next-generation sequencing are advanced technologies. It is time to update the knowledge and utilize them in day-to-day practice. These tests are utilized both in prenatal diagnosis and in some clinical scenarios, which are elaborated in detail. Karyotyping is the basic tool to detect both numerical and structural abnormalities. It is advantageous in that it is accurate with error of 0.001% but has a resolution of up to 5 MB. Rapid aneuploidy detection tests are equally accurate and detect as good as 99%. They are FISH, QF-PCR and MLPA. They have high sensitivity and specificity, and results are available within 3 days of time. Hence, these tests are apt for Indian scenarios, where late detection of anomalies (18-20 weeks) is common. Chromosomal microarray is the hybridization technique which detects aneuploidy of all chromosomes. This is useful for detection of deletion and duplication in chromosomes. This is not available for prenatal diagnosis in India now, whereas this is available for prenatal diagnosis in developed countries. Whole-exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing are advanced techniques which have been described and discussed at length.

Indexed as

Chromosomal microarrayKaryotypingRapid aneuploidy detection testsWhole-exome sequencingWhole-genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID32029999
PMCPMC6982626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.