Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33837172›Full record

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.

Zhu-Ming Hu, Lei-Lei Li, Han Zhang, Hong-Guo Zhang, Rui-Zhi Liu, Yang Yu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhu-Ming HuCenter of Reproductive Medicine and Prenatal Diagnosis, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China (mainland).
Lei-Lei LiCenter of Reproductive Medicine and Prenatal Diagnosis, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China (mainland).
Han ZhangCenter of Reproductive Medicine and Prenatal Diagnosis, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China (mainland).
Hong-Guo ZhangCenter of Reproductive Medicine and Prenatal Diagnosis, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China (mainland).
Rui-Zhi LiuCenter of Reproductive Medicine and Prenatal Diagnosis, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China (mainland).
Yang YuCenter of Reproductive Medicine and Prenatal Diagnosis, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin, China (mainland).
First Hospital of Jilin University · CNJilin University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PregnancyAdultAgingAmniocentesisBiomarkersChromosome AberrationsChromosomes, HumanDNA Copy Number VariationsFemaleFetusHumansMaternal AgeMicroarray AnalysisPrenatal DiagnosisUltrasonographyBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID33837172
PMCPMC8045481
OpenAlexW3129618023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.