ReviewFrontiers in genetics2021
Non-invasive Prenatal Testing, What Patients Do Not Learn, May Be Due to Lack of Specialist Genetic Training by Gynecologists and Obstetricians?
Review 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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trust As the Foundation for Informed Decision-Making in Prenatal Genetic Screening and Diagnostic Testing: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Knowledge and Attitudes of Medical and Nursing Students toward Noninvasive Prenatal Testing and Fetal Anomaly Scan.Annals of African medicine · 2026Article
- A decade later: Assessing pregnant women's perspectives on non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in Saudi Arabia.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Women's experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing in Switzerland: a qualitative analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- The Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Potential of Cell-Free DNA with a Special Focus on COVID-19 and Other Viral Infections.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Reliability, Challenges, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in Germany.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Genetic Counselling Needs for Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening: A Scoping Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Prenatal diagnosis and genetic counseling of a paternally inherited microduplication 18q11.1 to 18q11.2 in a chinese family.Molecular cytogenetics · 2022Article
- False-positives and false-negatives in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): what can we learn from a meta-analyses on > 750,000 tests?Molecular cytogenetics · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Familial microdeletion 18p11.32 to 18p11.31 in a Chinese family with normal phenotype.Molecular cytogenetics · 2022Article
- Case Report: Prenatal Identification of aFrontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- A retrospective single-center analysis of prenatal diagnosis and follow-up of 626 chinese patients with positive non-invasive prenatal screening results.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Case Report: Two cases of apparent discordance between non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and amniocentesis resulting in feto-placental mosaicism of trisomy 21. Issues in diagnosis, investigation and counselling.Frontiers in genetics · 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
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Platforms for "non-invasive prenatal testing" (NIPT), or also referred to as "non-invasive prenatal screening" (NIPS) have been available for over 10 years, and are the most recent tools available to obtain information about genetic condition(s) of an unborn child. The highly praised advantage of NIPT-screening is that results can provide early hints on the detection of fetal trisomies and gonosomal numerical aberrations as early as the 10th week of gestation onward, without any need for invasive procedures, such as amniocenteses or alternatives. Understandably, the public along with gynecologists and obstetricians eagerly await these early test results. Their general hope for normal (=negative) test results is also justified, as in >95% of the tested cases such an outcome is to be expected. However, pregnant women can be disappointed and confused, particularly regarding the genetic information and proposed care when the results are positive, and these emotions are also common with false-positive and false-negative NIPT results. Finally, such concerns in understanding the advantages and limitations of this routinely ordered screening tool end up at Clinical Geneticists and Genetic counselors. In this review, general background on NIPT, differences of NIPT platforms, advantages and limitations of NIPT, as well as consequences of insufficient counseling before and after NIPT are summarized. To provide comprehensive care in all pregnancies situations, professionals need a careful attitude toward offering NIPT along with specially training and qualifications in counseling for these procedures. Often it is gynecologists and obstetricians who discuss the use of NIPT with patients; however, although these physicians have a highly qualified background and knowledge in their respective specialty area(s), they may lack specific training on the interpretation of NIPT-screening results. These potential knowledge gaps must be closed quickly and comprehensively by the corresponding scientific societies to ensure optimal patient care.
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.