Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32383339›Full record

SynthesisMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2020

Diagnostic cytogenetic testing following positive noninvasive prenatal screening results of sex chromosome abnormalities: Report of five cases and systematic review of evidence.

Xiaolei Xie, Weihe Tan, Fuguang Li, Eric Carrano, Paola Ramirez, Autumn DiAdamo, Brittany Grommisch, Katherine Amato, Hongyan Chai, Jiadi Wen and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readCase ReportsEvaluation StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Xiaolei XieDepartment of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Weihe TanPrenatal Diagnosis Center, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Qingyuan People's Hospital, Qingyuan, Guangdong, China.
Fuguang LiPrenatal Diagnosis Center, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Qingyuan People's Hospital, Qingyuan, Guangdong, China.
Eric CarranoDepartment of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Paola RamirezDepartment of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Autumn DiAdamoDepartment of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Brittany GrommischDepartment of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Katherine AmatoDepartment of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Hongyan ChaiDepartment of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Jiadi WenDepartment of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Peining LiDepartment of Genetics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4746-4905
Yale University · USThird Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University · CNUniversity of Connecticut · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollow-up cytogenetic analysis has been recommended for cases with positive noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) results. This study of five cases with numerical and structural sex chromosomal abnormalities (SCA) and a review of large case series of NIPS provided guidance to improve prenatal diagnosis for SCA.

methodsFollowing positive NIPS results for SCA, karyotype analysis, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and locus-specific quantitative PCR were performed on cultured amniocytes, chorionic villi cells, and stimulated lymphocytes. Review of large case series was performed to evaluate the NIPS positive rate, follow-up rate of cytogenetic analysis, positive predictive value (PPV) for major types of SCA, and relative frequencies of subtypes of major SCA.

resultsOf the five cases with positive NIPS for SCA, case 1 showed a mosaic pattern of monosomy X and isodicentric Y; case 2 showed a mosaic pattern of monosomy X confined to the placenta; cases 3 and 4 had an isochromosome of Xq, and case 5 showed a derivative chromosome 14 from a Yq/14p translocation of maternal origin. Review of literature showed that mean positive rate of NIPS for SCA was 0.61%, follow-up rate of cytogenetics analysis was 76%, and mean PPV for SCA was 48%. Mosaic patterns and structural rearrangements involving sex chromosomes were estimated in 3%-20% and 3% of SCA cases, respectively.

conclusionThese five cases further demonstrated the necessity to pursue follow-up cytogenetic analysis to characterize mosaic patterns and structural abnormalities involving sex chromosomes and their value for prenatal genetic counseling. A workflow showing the performance of current NIPS and cytogenetic analysis for SCA was summarized. These results could facilitate an evidence-based approach to guide prenatal diagnosis of SCA.

Indexed as

Sex Chromosome AberrationsAdultFemaleHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceKaryotypingNoninvasive Prenatal TestingSensitivity and SpecificitySex Chromosome Disorderschromosome microarray analysis (CMA)fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)karyotypingmosaicismnoninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS)sex chromosome abnormalities (SCA)

Identifiers

PMID32383339
PMCPMC7336728
OpenAlexW3021737507

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.