ReviewArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Antenatal screening for chromosomal abnormalities.
Review in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical application of fetal Nuchal Translucency combined with noninvasive prenatal testing in screening chromosome abnormalities.PloS one · 2026Article
- Association Between Fetal Nuchal Translucency Measurements and Pregnancy Outcomes.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Value of Choroid Plexus-to-Lateral Ventricle Volume Ratio (CLVVR) in First-Trimester Screening (11-13⁺International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Investigation of balanced chromosomal aberrations prevalence in healthy Turkish Cypriot couples.Global medical genetics · 2025Article
- Results and indications changes by prenatal diagnosis of 3,458 pregnant women: a 10-year retrospective study.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Transcervical, Transabdominal and Transvaginal Chorionic Villus Sampling for Prenatal Diagnosis in Zagreb, Croatia: A Prospective Single-Operator Study on 5500 Cases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Counseling prior to cfDNA screening: are we giving the right numbers?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- First and Second-Trimester Screening, for Down's Syndrome: An Umbrella Review on Meta-Analyses.Health science reports · 2025Review
- Impact of a new image enhancement technology on the nuchal translucency thickness.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Second trimester soft markers: still worth to be mentioned?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Review
- Article
- Evaluation of the clinical utility of NIPT-plus and analysis of adverse pregnancy outcomes.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Genetic correlation between fetal nuchal translucency thickening and cystic hygroma and exploration of pregnancy outcome.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Importance of a detailed anomaly scan after a cfDNA test indicating fetal trisomy 21, 18 or 13.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Correlation between maternal serum biomarkers and the risk of fetal chromosome copy number variants: a single-center retrospective study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- The 'Radiant Effect': Recent Sonographic Image-Enhancing Technique and Its Impact on Nuchal Translucency Measurements.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Obesity in prenatal medicine: a game changer?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
- Improving prenatal diagnosis with combined karyotyping, CNV-seq and QF-PCR: a comprehensive analysis of chromosomal abnormalities in high-risk pregnancies.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Associations between first-trimester screening biomarkers and maternal characteristics with gestational diabetes mellitus in Chinese women.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Pathogenic/likely pathogenic copy number variations and regions of homozygosity in fetal central nervous system malformations.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening for chromosomal disorders, especially for trisomy 21, has undergone a number of changes in the last 50 years. Today, cell-free DNA analysis (cfDNA) is the gold standard in screening for trisomy 21. Despite the advantages that cfDNA offers in screening for common trisomies, it must be recognized that it does not address many other chromosomal disorders and any of the structural fetal anomalies. In the first trimester, the optimal approach is to combine an ultrasound assessment of the fetus, which includes an NT measurement, with cfDNA testing. If fetal structural defects are detected or if the NT thickness is increased, an amniocentesis or a CVS with at least chromosomal microarray should be offered.
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.