ArticleBMC medical genomics2022
The effect of hemolysis on quality control metrics for noninvasive prenatal testing.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bridging the scales for deformable red blood cells simulation: from resolved immersed boundary to unresolved CFD-DEM.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2026Article
- Non-invasive prenatal detection of dominant single-gene disorders in fetal structural abnormalities: a clinical feasibility study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 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
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNoninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is the testing of blood samples from pregnant women to screen for fetal risk of chromosomal disorders. Even though in vitro hemolysis of blood specimens is common in clinical laboratories, its influence on NIPT has not been well investigated.
methodsPeripheral blood samples were collected from 205 pregnant women and categorized according to the concentration of free hemoglobin in the plasma. After performing NIPT using massively parallel sequencing, the quality control metrics were analyzed and compared with samples that did not undergo hemolysis or samples redrawn from the same women.
resultsThe specimens were divided into four groups based on the concentration of free hemoglobin: Group I (0-1 g/L, n = 53), Group II (1-2 g/L, n = 97), Group III (2-4 g/L, n = 30), and Group IV (> 4 g/L, n = 25). There was no significant difference in the quality control metrics of clinical samples with slight or moderate hemolysis (Group II and III). However, samples with severe hemolysis (Group IV) showed a significantly increased rate of duplicated reads (duplication rate) and fetal fraction, as well as decreased library concentration compared with samples without hemolysis. Moreover, the increase in fetal fraction caused by hemolysis was confirmed by redrawing blood samples in Group IV.
conclusionFor NIPT using massively parallel sequencing, samples with slight or moderate hemolysis (≤ 4 g/L) are acceptable. However, careful consideration should be taken regarding the use of severely hemolyzed samples (> 4 g/L), since they might increase the risk of test failure.
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.