ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2021
Diagnostic performance of the noninvasive prenatal FetoGnost RhD assay for the prediction of the fetal RhD blood group status.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2021. 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.
- Routine use of a spike-in DNA in-process control for foetal RHD genotyping: Testing the real-world effectiveness of this 'canary'.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
- Noninvasive fetal blood group antigen genotyping.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning in cell-free-DNA-based diagnostics.Genome research · 2025Review
- FetalBiomedicines · 2023Article
- Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD): current and emerging technologies.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2023Review
- Terminating Routine Cord Blood RhD Typing of the Newborns to Guide Postnatal Anti-D Immunoglobulin Prophylaxis Based on the Results of Fetal RHD Genotyping.Fetal diagnosis and therapy · 2023Article
- Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Immunohematology-Clinical, Technical and Ethical Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a commercially available test kit for noninvasive prenatal determination of the fetal RhD status (NIPT-RhD) with a focus on early gestation and multiple pregnancies.
methodsThe FetoGnost RhD assay (Ingenetix, Vienna, Austria) is routinely applied for clinical decision making either in woman with anti-D alloimmunization or to target the application of routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis (RAADP) to women with a RhD positive fetus. Based on existing data in the laboratory information system the newborn's serological RhD status was compared with NIPT RhD results.
resultsSince 2009 NIPT RhD was performed in 2968 pregnant women between weeks 5 + 6 and 40 + 0 of gestation (median 12 + 6) and conclusive results were obtained in 2888 (97.30%) cases. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated from those 2244 (77.70%) cases with the newborn's serological RhD status reported. The sensitivity of the FetoGnost RhD assay was 99.93% (95% CI 99.61-99.99%) and the specificity was 99.61% (95% CI 98.86-99.87%). No false-positive or false-negative NIPT RhD result was observed in 203 multiple pregnancies.
conclusionNIPT RhD results are reliable when obtained with FetoGnost RhD assay. Targeted routine anti-D-prophylaxis can start as early as 11 + 0 weeks of gestation in singleton and multiple pregnancies.
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.