SynthesisPrenatal diagnosis2022
What's out there for parents? A systematic review of online information about prenatal microarray and exome sequencing.
Synthesis in Prenatal diagnosis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What's out there for parents? A systematic review of online information about prenatal microarray and exome sequencing.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Pooled it
- Can an Animation Improve Parents' Knowledge and How Does It Compare to Written Information? Development and Survey Evaluation of an Animation for Parents About Prenatal Sequencing.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Trial
- Implementing a rapid fetal exome sequencing service: What do parents and health professionals think?Prenatal diagnosis · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo identify what online patient information (presented in English) is available to parents about prenatal microarray (CMA) and exome sequencing (ES), and evaluate its content, quality, and readability.
methodSystematic searches (Google and Bing) were conducted, and websites were categorised according to their purpose. Websites categorised as patient information were included if they were: in English, directed at patients, or were a text, video, or online version of an information leaflet. Author-developed content checklists, the DISCERN Genetics tool, and readability tests (the Flesch Reading Ease Score, the Gunning Fog Index, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index) were then used to assess those sources of patient information.
resultsOf the 665 websites screened, 18 met the criteria. A further 8 sources were found through a targeted search of professional organisations, resulting in 26 sources available for further evaluation. In general, this was found to be low in quality, omitted details recommended by national or international guidance, and was written at a level too advanced for average readers.
conclusionImprovements should be made to the content, quality, and readability of online information so that it both reinforces and complements the discussions between parents and clinicians about testing options during pregnancy.
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.