ArticlePloS one2021
Have maternal or paternal ages any impact on the prenatal incidence of genomic copy number variants associated with fetal structural anomalies?
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fetal Copy Number Variant Detection in Pregnancies with Ultrasound Soft Markers: A Maternal Age-Stratified Retrospective Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Multifocal Genomic Reconstruction Leading to Germline Structural Variants.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Prospective prenatal cell-free DNA screening for genetic conditions of heterogenous etiologies.Nature medicine · 2024Observational
- Genetic analysis of chorionic villus tissues in early missed abortions.Scientific reports · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine whether maternal or paternal ages have any impact on the prenatal incidence of genomic copy number variants (CNV) in fetuses with structural anomalies. We conducted a non-paired case-control study (1:2 ratio) among pregnancies undergoing chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) because of fetal ultrasound anomalies, from December 2012 to May 2020. Pregnancies with any pathogenic copy number variant (CNV), either microdeletion or microduplication, were defined as cases. Controls were selected as the next two pregnancies with the same indication for CMA but with a normal result. Logistic regression was used, adjusting by use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and parental smoking. Stratified analysis was performed according to CNV type (de novo/inherited and recurrent/non-recurrent). The study included 189 pregnancies: 63 cases and 126 controls. Mean maternal age in cases was 33.1 (SD 4.6) years and 33.9 (SD 6.0) years in controls. Mean paternal mean age was 34.5 (SD 4.8) years in cases and 35.8 (SD 5.8) years in controls. No significant differences in maternal or paternal age were observed, neither in stratified analysis according to the CNV type. Moreover, the proportion of cases were not significantly different between non-advanced and advanced ages, either considering paternal or maternal ages. The presence of pathogenic CNV at CMA in fetuses with structural anomalies was not found to be associated with advanced paternal or maternal age.
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.