ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2021
Evaluation of repeat testing of a non-sequencing based NIPT test on a Finnish general-risk population.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Application of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Singleton Pregnancy with and without in vitro Fertilization: A 6-year Observational Study at a Single Tertiary Center.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Cell-free DNA-based prenatal screening via rolling circle amplification: Identifying and resolving analytic issues.Journal of medical screening · 2023Article
- Analysis of retest reliability for pregnant women undergoing cfDNA testing with a no-call result.Molecular biology reports · 2023Article
- Non-Invasive prenatal testing with rolling circle amplification: Real-world clinical experience in a non-molecular laboratory.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2023Article
- Assessment and Clinical Utility of a Non-Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing Technology.Current issues in molecular biology · 2021Article
- Lipid Metabolism Affects Fetal Fraction and Screen Failures in Non-invasive Prenatal Testing.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo evaluate the effect of repeating test failures using an automated, non-sequencing based non-invasive prenatal testing test on a general-risk population in Finland. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 545 samples from women who represent the average-risk population in Oulu, Finland were analyzed with Vanadis
resultsThere were eight test failures after first-pass analysis, representing 1.5% of samples (95% CI 0.6%-2.9%). Seven out of eight failures could be resolved by analysis of a second sample, thereby reducing the test failure rate from 1.5% to 0.2% (95% CI 0.0%-1.0%).
conclusionsRepeating test failures with a second plasma sample could significantly reduce the effective failure rate, thereby providing a way to effectively minimize test failures and further improving clinical utility and test performance.
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.