ArticleFrontiers in genetics2021
Clinical Efficiency of Non-invasive Prenatal Screening for Common Trisomies in Low-Risk and Twin Pregnancies.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-invasive prediction of preeclampsia using the maternal plasma cell-free DNA profile and clinical risk factors.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- A Critical Evaluation of Validation and Clinical Experience Studies in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing for Trisomies 21, 18, and 13 and Monosomy X.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the clinical efficiency of non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for fetal aneuploidies in low-risk and twin pregnancies, patients who received NIPS in a tertiary university hospital were enrolled, and their clinical data, NIPS results and pregnancy outcomes were collected. Patients were divided into singleton and twin pregnancies, and then those with singleton pregnancies were divided into low- and high-risk pregnancies. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were estimated. Comparisons were made on the clinical efficiency of NIPS between singleton and twin pregnancies, as well as between low- and high-risk pregnancies. Of 66,172 patients enrolled, 59,962 were eligible for analysis. The sensitivity, specificity and NPV were ≥ 99% in singleton and twin pregnancies. The PPVs were 90.4, 56.6, and 13.0% in singleton pregnancies, while 100, 33.3, and 0% in twin pregnancies for trisomy 21 (T21), trisomy 18 (T18) and trisomy 13 (T13), respectively (
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.