ArticleInternational journal of women's health2021
Prenatal Diagnostic Testing Following High-Risk Result from Serological Screening: Which Shall We Select?
Article in International journal of women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe retrospectively analyzed the results of prenatal diagnosis in women with high-risk (HR) serological screening results, and discussed the reasonable application of diagnostic testing. PATIENTS AND
methodsDiagnostic testing was done in 2239 pregnant women who had HR results from serological screening in two prenatal diagnosis centers. According to the HR results, they were divided into simple HR, HR combined with ultrasound abnormalities, and HR combined with other indication groups. After receiving counselling from clinicians, they were allowed to choose either the traditional karyotype analysis and/or chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA).
resultsThose who underwent CMA comprised 49.3%, 97.6%, and 100% of the HR group, HR combined with ultrasound abnormalities, and HR combined with other indication groups, respectively. Among the 100 (4.47%) clinically significant results, 55 (2.46%), 15 (0.67%), and 30 (1.34%) were chromosomal aneuploidies, chromosomal structural abnormalities, and pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs), respectively. The rate of abnormalities was 3.77%, 13.71%, and 19.05% in the simple HR, HR combined with ultrasound abnormalities, and HR combined with other indication groups, respectively. The increasing rate of clinical pathogenic CNVs was 1.34% using CMA in HR pregnant women, 9.52% in the HR combined with other indication group, and 1.24% in the simple HR group. Among the 573 women who chose both diagnostic tests, 45 had abnormal results. Only one case detected using karyotype analysis was missed on CMA. The incidence of chromosomal aneuploidy tended to increase with increase in HR values. However, chromosomal structural abnormalities and pathogenic CNVs did not increase.
conclusionCMA should be recommended as the first-line diagnostic testing for women with HR screening results, especially combined with other abnormal indications.
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.