Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33540854›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Prenatal Exome Sequencing: Background, Current Practice and Future Perspectives-A Systematic Review.

Daniele Guadagnolo, Gioia Mastromoro, Francesca Di Palma, Antonio Pizzuti, Enrica Marchionni

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Exome sequencing as first-tier test for fetuses with severe central nervous system structural anomalies.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Daniele GuadagnoloDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Gioia MastromoroDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0788-1683
Francesca Di PalmaDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Antonio PizzutiDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Enrica MarchionniDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0341-6461

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The introduction of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies has exerted a significant impact on prenatal diagnosis. Prenatal Exome Sequencing (pES) is performed with increasing frequency in fetuses with structural anomalies and negative chromosomal analysis. The actual diagnostic value varies extensively, and the role of incidental/secondary or inconclusive findings and negative results has not been fully ascertained. We performed a systematic literature review to evaluate the diagnostic yield, as well as inconclusive and negative-result rates of pES. Papers were divided in two groups. The former includes fetuses presenting structural anomalies, regardless the involved organ; the latter focuses on specific class anomalies. Available findings on non-informative or negative results were gathered as well. In the first group, the weighted average diagnostic yield resulted 19%, and inconclusive finding rate 12%. In the second group, the percentages were extremely variable due to differences in sample sizes and inclusion criteria, which constitute major determinants of pES efficiency. Diagnostic pES availability and its application have a pivotal role in prenatal diagnosis, though more homogeneity in access criteria and a consensus on clinical management of controversial information management is envisageable to reach widespread use in the near future.

Indexed as

ESNGSpESprenatal diagnosisprenatal exome sequencingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33540854
PMCPMC7913004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.