ArticleZdravstveno varstvo2020
Pregnancy Loss After Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling: Cohort Study.
Article in Zdravstveno varstvo, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Engineering the Human Endometrial-Embryo Interface: Breakthroughs in 3D Uterine Models.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- Chorionic Villus Sampling in the Era of Genomic Medicine: A Gateway to Early and Personalized Prenatal Diagnosis.The application of clinical genetics · 2026Article
- Micrognathia as a Diagnosis Marker for the Prenatal Identification of Edwards Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Applying machine learning in screening for Down Syndrome in both trimesters for diverse healthcare scenarios.Heliyon · 2024Article
- The technical and ethical framework of fetal therapy: past and current advances.Current stem cell reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Fetal and Maternal Outcomes in Chorion Villus Sampling (CVS).Advanced biomedical research · 2023Article
- Molecular Diagnostics of Ciliopathies and Insights Into Novel Developments in Diagnosing Rare Diseases.British journal of biomedical science · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntroduction: To estimate the procedure-related risks of pregnancy loss following chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and amniocentesis (AC) compared to pregnancies without procedure.
methodsThis cohort study enrolled all women who underwent CVS or AC at the Department of Perinatology, University Medical Centre, Ljubljana, Slovenia (from January 2013 to June 2015). For each group we obtained a maternal age and gestational age (11-14 weeks for CVS and >15 weeks for AC) for a matched control group without invasive procedures from the national database. The data was obtained from hospital records and telephone surveys concerning pregnancy outcomes. Pregnancy loss rates in intervention vs. control groups were compared by generating relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval.
resultsDuring the study period, 828 women underwent CVS and 2,164 women underwent AC. Complete outcome data was available in 2,798 cases (93.5%, 770 CVS, 2,028 AC). Pregnancy loss occurred in 8/770 (1.04%, 95% CI 0.4-2.0%) after CVS vs. 15/1130 (1.33%, 95% CI 0.8-2.2%) in matched control (RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.33-1.8, p=0.6). It occurred in 16/2028 (0.79%, 95% CI 0.5-1.3%) after AC vs. 14/395 (3.29%, 95% CI 2.1-5.8%) in matched control (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.11-0.45, p<0.0001).
conclusionThe pregnancy loss rates after CVS and AC were comparable to losses in pregnancies without these procedures. With the increasing use of non-invasive prenatal testing, information that the invasive procedures are safe when indicated is essential.
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.