ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2022
Retrospective identification of prenatal fetal anomalies associated with diagnostic neonatal genomic sequencing results.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Going Back in Time: Prenatal Presentations of Postnatal Genetic Diagnoses Made in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Advancing precision care in pregnancy through a treatable fetal findings list.American journal of human genetics · 2025Review
- Prenatal exomes and genomes - so much new and so much more to learn.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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine which types of fetal anomalies are associated with postnatal diagnoses of genetic diseases by genomic sequencing and to assess how prenatal genomic sequencing could affect clinical management.
methodThis was a secondary analysis of the second Newborn Sequencing in Genomic Medicine and Public Health study that compared fetal imaging results in critically ill infants who had actionable versus negative postnatal genomic sequencing results.
resultsOf 213 infants who received genomic sequencing, 80 had available prenatal ultrasounds. Twenty-one (26%) of these were found to have genetic diseases by genomic sequencing. Fourteen (67%) of the 21 with genetic diseases had suspected anomalies prenatally, compared with 33 (56%) of 59 with negative results. Among fetuses with suspected anomalies, genetic diseases were 4.5 times more common in those with multiple anomalies and 6.7 times more common in those with anomalies of the extremities compared to those with negative results. Had the genetic diseases been diagnosed prenatally, clinical management would have been altered in 13 of 14.
conclusionCritically ill infants with diagnostic genomic sequencing were more likely to have multiple anomalies and anomalies of the extremities on fetal imaging. Among almost all infants with suspected fetal anomalies and diagnostic genomic sequencing results, prenatal diagnosis would have likely altered clinical management.
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.