ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2021
Genetic analysis of products of conception. Should we abandon classic karyotyping methodology?
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Chromosome Abnormality Detection Rates of QF-PCR in Early Pregnancy Loss.Current health sciences journalArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the results obtained by the classic and molecular methodology in the analysis of products of conception, the advantages and disadvantages of each method.
methodsRetrospective non-randomized analysis of results obtained from product of conception samples submitted to genetic evaluation, from 2012 to 2017. The evaluations were performed using cytogenetics and/or chromosomal microarray analysis or arrays.
resultsForty samples were analyzed using classic cytogenetics, of which 10% showed no cell growth, 50% had normal results and 40% had abnormalities. Of the 41 cases sent for array analysis it was not possible to obtain results in 7.3%, 39.5% were normal and 60.5% had abnormalities. There was no statistical difference among the results (p=0.89). Most abnormal results were seen till 9 weeks' gestation. The later abnormal miscarriage was seen at 28 weeks' gestation, with karyotype 46,XX,del(15)(q26.2-qter). The results are corroborated by the international literature.
conclusionClassic cytogenetics and array techniques showed comparable results on the type of alteration observed. Array analysis is preferable to cell culture in delayed abortions, while cytogenetics is more able to show polyploidies. Both have the same growth failure rates when product of conception tissue is not properly collected.
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.