ArticleBMC medical genomics2021
Evaluation of chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations in fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Fetuses With Ultrasonographic Soft Markers: A Meta-Analysis of the Current Evidence.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis in prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with ultrasound soft markers: A retrospective single-center comparative study with karyotyping.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Residual risk of clinically significant copy number variations in fetuses with ultrasonographic soft markers following exclusion of non-invasive prenatal screening-detectable findings.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Fetal Copy Number Variant Detection in Pregnancies with Ultrasound Soft Markers: A Maternal Age-Stratified Retrospective Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with ultrasound soft markers.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Diagnostic and prognostic role of soft ultrasound markers in prenatal detection and assessment of foetal abnormalities.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2024Review
- Comparison of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Pregnant Women with Fetal Ultrasonic Soft Markers.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Fetuses with Ultrasound Abnormalities.International journal of general medicine · 2024Article
- Application of Copy Number Variation Sequencing Technology in 422 Foetuses with Abnormal Ultrasound Soft Markers.International journal of women's health · 2023Article
- Molecular Approaches in Fetal Malformations, Dynamic Anomalies and Soft Markers: Diagnostic Rates and Challenges-Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Application of ultrasound combined with noninvasive prenatal testing in prenatal testing.Translational pediatrics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSome ultrasonic soft markers can be found during ultrasound examination. However, the etiology of the fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers is still unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the genetic etiology and clinical value of chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations (CNVs) in fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers.
methodsAmong 1131 fetuses, 729 had single ultrasonic soft marker, 322 had two ultrasonic soft markers, and 80 had three or more ultrasonic soft markers. All fetuses underwent conventional karyotyping, followed by single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analysis.
resultsAmong 1131 fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers, 46 had chromosomal abnormalities. In addition to the 46 fetuses with chromosomal abnormalities consistent with the results of the karyotyping analysis, the SNP array identified additional 6.1% (69/1131) abnormal CNVs. The rate of abnormal CNVs in fetuses with ultrasonic soft marker, two ultrasonic soft markers, three or more ultrasonic soft markers were 6.2%, 6.2%, and 5.0%, respectively. No significant difference was found in the rate of abnormal CNVs among the groups.
conclusionsGenetic abnormalities affect obstetrical outcomes. The SNP array can fully complement conventional karyotyping in fetuses with ultrasonic soft markers, improve detection rate of chromosomal abnormalities, and affect pregnancy outcomes.
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.