Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34067767›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Understanding False Negative in Prenatal Testing.

Mark I Evans, Ming Chen, David W Britt

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Evolving Frameworks for the Foundation and Practice of Electronic Fetal Monitoring.Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mark I EvansFetal Medicine Foundation of America, Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.
Ming ChenDepartment of Genomic Medicine, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua 50046, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-5076-2917
David W BrittFetal Medicine Foundation of America, Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.
Fetal Medicine Foundation of America · USDayeh University · TW

Funding

Changhua Christian Hospital 109-CCH-PRJ-117
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A false negative can happen in many kinds of medical tests, regardless of whether they are screening or diagnostic in nature. However, it inevitably poses serious concerns especially in a prenatal setting because its sequelae can mark the birth of an affected child beyond expectation. False negatives are not a new thing because of emerging new tests in the field of reproductive, especially prenatal, genetics but has occurred throughout the evolution of prenatal screening and diagnosis programs. In this paper we aim to discuss the basic differences between screening and diagnosis, the trade-offs and the choices, and also shed light on the crucial points clinicians need to know and be aware of so that a quality service can be provided in a coherent and sensible way to patients so that vital issues related to a false negative result can be appropriately comprehended by all parties.

Indexed as

down syndrome screeningmendelian screening panelmicroarrayneural tube defectnoninvasive prenatal testing

Identifiers

PMID34067767
PMCPMC8156690
OpenAlexW3160065016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.