ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2022
Disparities in the acceptance of chromosomal microarray at the time of prenatal genetic diagnosis.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disparities in access to reproductive genetic services associated with geographic location of residence and maternal race and ethnicity.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveChromosomal microarray (CMA) increases the diagnostic yield of prenatal genetic diagnostic testing but is not universally performed. Our objective was to identify provider and patient characteristics associated with the acceptance of CMA at the time of prenatal genetic diagnostic testing.
methodsRetrospective cohort study of patients undergoing prenatal genetic diagnostic testing (chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis) at a single institution between 2014 and 2020. Primary outcome was the acceptance of CMA based on the genetic counselor ,GC who saw the patient. Secondary analyses assessed patient characteristics associated with the acceptance of CMA.
results2372 participants were included. Fifty-eight percent of participants accepted CMA. Acceptance of CMA varied significantly by GC, ranging from 31% to 90%. Patients with public insurance and those who identified as Black or Hispanic/Latina were less likely to have CMA performed (aOR 0.24, 95% CI 0.20-0.30, and 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.92). Even among those with a structural anomaly present, public insurance was associated with significantly lower odds of CMA being performed (aOR 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.61).
conclusionsAcceptance of CMA at the time of prenatal genetic diagnostic testing varied based on the GC performing the counseling. Public insurance was associated with lower frequency of accepting CMA.
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.