ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020
Prenatal screening in the era of non-invasive prenatal testing: a Nationwide cross-sectional survey of obstetrician knowledge, attitudes and clinical practice.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prenatal Screening for Common Aneuploidy in Southeast Asian Countries: A Systematic Review of Challenges and Opportunities.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Pooled it
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on and experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing: a systematic review.Human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of an animated educational video on knowledge of cell-free DNA screening among Thai pregnant women: a randomized control trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Trial
- Does an educational video for aneuploidy screening improve informed choice among pregnant women? A randomised controlled trial.Prenatal diagnosis · 2023Trial
- Patient Preferences and Understanding of Genome-Wide Cell-Free DNA Screening for Foetal Chromosomal Imbalances: A Survey Study.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Improved contingent screening strategy increased trisomy 21 detection rate in the second trimester.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Blazing the Trail of Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening Expanded Use: Healthcare Providers' Perspectives.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- A decade later: Assessing pregnant women's perspectives on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in Saudi Arabia.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Clinical strategy study on prenatal screening and diagnostic model for Down syndrome.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Performance Evaluation of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Screening Chromosome Disorders: A Single-Center Observational Study of 15,304 Consecutive Cases in China.International journal of women's health · 2024Article
- Combined fetal fraction to analyze the Z-score accuracy of noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal trisomies 13, 18, and 21.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has revolutionized the prenatal screening landscape with its high accuracy and low false positive rate for detecting Trisomy 21, 18 and 13. Good understanding of its benefits and limitations is crucial for obstetricians to provide effective counselling and make informed decisions about its use. This study aimed to evaluate obstetrician knowledge and attitudes regarding NIPT for screening for the common trisomies, explore how obstetricians integrated NIPT into first-line and contingent screening, and determine whether expanded use of NIPT to screen for sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs) and microdeletion/microduplication syndromes (CNVs) was widespread.
methodsA questionnaire was designed and administered with reference to the CHERRIES criteria for online surveys. Doctors on the Obstetrics & Gynaecology trainee and specialist registers were invited to participate. Medians and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for confidence and knowledge scores.
results94/306 (30.7%) doctors responded to the survey. First trimester screening (FTS) remained the main method offered to screen for the common trisomies. 45.7% (43/94) offered NIPT as an alternative first-line screen for singletons and 30.9% (29/94) for monochorionic diamniotic twins. A significant proportion offered concurrent NT and NIPT (25/94, 26.6%), or FTS and NIPT (33/94, 35.1%) in singletons. Varying follow up strategies were offered at intermediate, high and very-high FTS risk cut-offs for Trisomy 21. Respondents were likely to offer screening for SCAs and CNVs to give patients autonomy of choice (53/94, 56.4% SCAs, 47/94, 50% CNVs) at no additional cost (52/94, 55.3% SCAs, 39/94, 41.5% CNVs). Median clinical knowledge scores were high (10/12) and did not differ significantly between specialists (95% CI 10-11) and non-specialists (95% CI 9.89-11). Lower scores were observed for scenarios in which NIPT would be more likely to fail.
conclusionsOur findings show the diversity of clinical practice with regard to the incorporation of NIPT into prenatal screening algorithms, and suggest that the use of NIPT both as a first-line screening tool in the general obstetric population, and to screen for SCAs and CNVs, is becoming increasingly prevalent. Clear guidance and continuing educational support are essential for providers in this rapidly evolving field.
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.