Observational studyBMJ open2022
Non-invasive prenatal testing in mitigating concerns from invasive prenatal diagnostic testing: retrospective assessment of utility in an academic healthcare system in the US.
Observational study in BMJ open, 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.
- Article
- A Novel Paradigm for Non-Invasive Prenatal Genetic Screening: Trophoblast Retrieval and Isolation from the Cervix (TRIC).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a front-line screening for fatal chromosomal aneuploidy. In pregnant women with a risk of having fetal congenital disorders, NIPT is anticipated to reduce the needs of invasive prenatal diagnostic test (IPD). The objective of this study was to understand the acceptance of NIPT and the utility of NIPT to mitigate concerns about IPD in the US high-risk pregnancy management. DESIGN AND
settingThis was a retrospective observational research using healthcare records obtained from an academic healthcare system in the US. The study consisted of site-level longitudinal analysis and patient-level cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANT: A total of 5660 new high-risk pregnancies with age ≥35 years were identified for the longitudinal trend analysis. Cross-sectional utility assessment included 2057 pregnant women. EXPOSURE AND OUTCOME MEASURES: Longitudinal trends of NIPT order, IPD procedure and the number of patients diagnosed with high-risk pregnancy were descriptively summarised. In the cross-sectional assessment, we tested the association between the use of NIPT and IPD using multivariable regression.
resultsThe rate of increase in the NIPT use exceeded the changes in the number of high-risk pregnancies with age ≥35 years, while the number of annual IPD procedures has fluctuated without specific trends. There was no significant association between the numbers of NIPT and IPD with the adjusted ORs between 0.90 and 1.14 (p>0.1). The order of NIPT was not selected as an independent variable predicting the use of IPD. Clinical characteristics indicating low socioeconomic status and limited healthcare coverage are associated with less use of NIPT and lower clinical utility.
conclusionAlthough prenatal care accepted NIPT over the last decade, the utility of NIPT in mitigating concerns on IPD is unclear and needs further investigation. Limited clinical utility should be addressed in the context of disparity in prenatal care.
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.