ArticleJournal of human genetics2022
Chromosomal microarray analysis versus noninvasive prenatal testing in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency.
Article in Journal of human genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complementary Diagnostic Roles of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing, Chromosomal Microarray Analysis, and Karyotyping in 14,011 High-Risk Pregnancies: A Retrospective Cohort Study with Combined Analyses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Application of chromosomal microarray analysis and trio whole-exome sequencing in first-trimester prenatal diagnosis for high-risk pregnancies.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Copy number variants in fetuses with non-structural ultrasound abnormalities among pregnant women without adverse pregnancy history.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Copy number variants in fetuses with isolated and non-isolated increased nuchal translucency detected by chromosomal microarray analysis.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Prenatal diagnosis of aFrontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- The efficacy of expanded non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in a high-risk twin pregnancies cohort.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
- Selection of prenatal screening with nuchal translucency > 95th centile and below 99th centile: a 4-year observational study with real-world data.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Observational
- Associations between genomic aberrations, increased nuchal translucency, and pregnancy outcomes: a comprehensive analysis of 2,272 singleton pregnancies in women under 35.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Is Nuchal Translucency of 3.0-3.4 mm an Indication for cfDNA Testing or Microarray? - A Multicenter Retrospective Clinical Cohort Study.Fetal diagnosis and therapy · 2024Article
- When NIPT meets WES, prenatal diagnosticians face the dilemma: genetic etiological analysis of 2,328 cases of NT thickening and follow-up of pregnancy outcomes.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- A Pain in the Neck: Lessons Learnt from Genetic Testing in Fetuses Detected with Nuchal Fluid Collections, Increased Nuchal Translucency versus Cystic Hygroma-Systematic Review of the Literature, Meta-Analysis and Case Series.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate if the NT value of 2.5 mm ≤ NT < 3.0 mm is an appropriate indication for CMA tests among fetuses with isolated increased NT and NIPT is more suitable instead.
methodsA total of 442 fetuses with NT ≥ 2.5 mm were included, in which 241 fetuses underwent karyotype. CMA tests were then carried out when cytogenic analysis showed normal chromosomes and CNV status was compared between 2.5 mm ≤ NT < 3.0 mm and ≥3.0 mm subgroups. For the NIPT evaluation, 201 of 442 fetuses with smaller increased NT (2.5 mm ≤ NT < 3.0 mm) was examined by either NIPT or karyotype.
resultsOf the 241 fetuses with NT ≥ 2.5 mm, 47(19.50%) were identified by karyotype with chromosomal abnormalities. Among 194 cases with normal karyotype, CMA unraveled additional CNVs in 16(8.25%) cases, including 3(1.55%) pathogenic CNVs, 2(1.03%) likely pathogenic CNVs and 11(5.67%) VOUS. After the subgroup analysis, however, only one case (1.16%) of likely pathogenic was identified by CMA among 86 fetuses with NT between 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm, whereas the rest of 15 CNV cases were all presented in fetuses with NT ≥ 3.0 mm. For the NIPT evaluation, the detection rate of 201 fetuses with isolated increased NT between 2.5 and 3.0 mm was 3.98%, which was indifferent to karyotype with the rate of 5%. In comparison with fetuses with 2.5-3.0 mm combined with other risks, the detection rate of karyotype was 26.92%.
conclusionWhile no pathogenic CNVs were detected in fetuses, chromosomal aneuploidies and genomic imbalance were found to be the major type of abnormalities when NT was 2.5-3.0 mm. Therefore, our data suggested that CMA should not be recommended when fetuses with an NT value less than 3.0 mm. Instead, NIPT with similar rate of detection as karyotype was recommended for fetuses with isolated increased NT between 2.5 and 3.0 mm.
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.