ArticleMedicine2020
Fetal aneuploidy screening by non-invasive prenatal testing of maternal plasma DNA sequencing with "false negative" result due to confined placental mosaicism: A case report.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinically significant findings in a decade-long retrospective study of prenatal chromosomal microarray testing.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2024Review
- Evaluation of the clinical utility of extended non-invasive prenatal testing in the detection of chromosomal aneuploidy and microdeletion/microduplication.European journal of medical research · 2023Article
- Clinical application of noninvasive prenatal testing in the detection of fetal chromosomal diseases.Molecular cytogenetics · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is an accurate screening method with high specificity and sensitivity and a low false-positive rate of trisomy 21, 18, and 13. However, false-negative NIPT results could also limit the clinical application of NIPT. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 34-year-old primigravida woman who underwent NIPT at 16 + 3 weeks' gestation was identified as being at high risk for fetal trisomy X (47, XXX). Fetal cardiac defect and hand posture were observed during prenatal ultrasound examination at the 23rd week of gestation. DIAGNOSES: Amniocentesis conducted at the 24th week of gestation. Fetal karyotyping and FISH identified karyotype 48, XXX, + 18, which indicated that the NIPT failed to detect trisomy 18 in this case.
interventionsThe couple decided to terminate pregnancy at the 26th week of gestation and was willing to undergo further examinations. OUTCOMES: Discordant results between fetus with trisomy 18 and placenta with mosaic T18 were further identified with massive parallel sequencing, which might be due to that the fetal cell-free DNA in maternal plasma for NIPT that was assessed principally originated from the trophoblast cells. LESSONS: The presence of trisomy 18 mosaicism in the placenta might be the reason for the false-negative NIPT result in this case of double aneuploidy with 48, XXX, + 18, karyotype. Although the NIPT is a valuable screening method that has evident advantages in prenatal aneuploidy screening for certain chromosomal abnormalities compared to other methods, it is not a "diagnostic test" yet.
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.