ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2021
Clinical Application of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Pregnant Women with Advanced Maternal Age and Fetuses with Ultrasonographic Soft Markers.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of chromosomal microarray analysis for fetuses with nasal bone agenesis or hypoplasia.Molecular cytogenetics · 2026Article
- Fetal Copy Number Variant Detection in Pregnancies with Ultrasound Soft Markers: A Maternal Age-Stratified Retrospective Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Genomic risk profiling in advanced maternal age: a Tamil Nadu prenatal study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Karyotype Analysis for Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetuses With Abnormal Ultrasound Soft Markers.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2025Article
- Clinical Experience of Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in 6159 Ultrasonically Abnormal Fetuses.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2024Article
- Comparison of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Pregnant Women with Fetal Ultrasonic Soft Markers.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Prenatal Diagnosis Using Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in High-Risk Pregnancies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND In pregnant women with advanced maternal age (AMA) and fetuses with ultrasonographic (USG) soft markers it is always challenging to decide whether to implement chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) or not. It is unclear whether CMA should be used in the fetuses with isolated USG soft markers, and there is still a lack of extensive sample research. MATERIAL AND METHODS We enrolled 1521 cases in our research and divided them into 3 groups as follows: pregnant women with isolated AMA (group 1, n=633), pregnant women whose fetuses had isolated USG soft markers (group 2, n=750), and pregnant women with AMA whose fetuses had isolated USG soft markers (group 3, n=138). All pregnant women underwent prenatal ultrasound and amniocentesis, and fetal cells in the amniotic fluid were used for genetic analysis of CMA. All participants signed a written informed consent prior to CMA. RESULTS Abnormal findings were detected by CMA in 330 (21.70%) fetuses, including 37 (2.43%) clinically significant copy number variations (CNVs), 52 (3.42%) benign or likely benign CNVs, and 240 (15.78%) variants of unknown significance. The frequency of clinically significant CNVs in group 1 and group 2 were significantly lower than that in group 3 (2.37% and 2.0% vs 5.07%, P<0.01). More than a half (59.46%, 22/37) of the pregnant women decided to continue their pregnancy despite having a fetus diagnosed with clinically significant CNV. CONCLUSIONS CMA can increase the diagnostic yield of fetal chromosomal abnormality for pregnant women with isolated AMA or/and their fetuses had isolated USG soft markers.
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.