ArticleThe journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research2021
Usefulness of copy number variant detection following monogenic disease exclusion in prenatal diagnosis.
Article in The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research, 2021. 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.
- Clinical application of CNV-seq for diagnosing abnormal brain development in children.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Prenatal risk assessment of Xp21.1 duplication involving theLife science alliance · 2024Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimFamilies with an adverse history of monogenic disease focus on single-gene diagnosis instead of low-depth whole-genome sequence, during subsequent pregnancies. The aim of this study was to assess the potential usefulness of low-depth whole-genome sequencing (copy number variant sequencing [CNV-seq]) detection following monogenic disease exclusion in prenatal diagnosis.
methodsA total of 285 families with a history of monogenic disease (of 41 different types; eliminated during the current pregnancy) were recruited and retrospectively analyzed. Low-depth whole-genome sequencing (CNV-Seq, Next-Seq CN500 platform) was performed for all fetuses.
resultsThe CNV detection results of the 285 samples were as follows: one case of 18-trisomy chimera (0.35%), one case of pathogenic 3q29 microdeletion syndrome CNV (0.35%), four cases of variant of uncertain significance (VUS) CNVs (1.40%), and four cases of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) carriers (1.40%); and the remaining samples were normal (96.15%). Of note, 2/285 (0.70%) samples still exhibited pathogenic abnormalities. All positive samples were followed up where the two cases of pathogenic abnormalities elected the pregnancy termination, while the four VUS cases and four DMD-carrier cases were born healthy.
conclusionIn cases where prenatal fetal monogenic disease has been ruled out, CNV detection is still beneficial and should be performed to prevent missed pathogenic CNVs. However, the costs need to be balanced against benefits, and the research will need to assess other types of testing.
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.