ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2022
Clinical evaluation of non-invasive prenatal screening for the detection of fetal genome-wide copy number variants.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perinatal outcomes of fetal CNVs detected by genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing in Japan.Journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Concordance between genome-wide cfDNA screening and diagnostic test results for large copy-number variants: a multi-site study from the Global Expanded NIPT Consortium.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Rethinking the Burden of Traditional Informed Consent Prior to Prenatal Genetic Screening.The Hastings Center report · 2025Article
- Noninvasive prenatal screening and diagnosis of two fetuses with Williams syndrome in a cohort of 19,607 pregnancies.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical outcomes of screen-positive genome-wide cfDNA cases for trisomy 20: results from the global expanded NIPT Consortium.Molecular cytogenetics · 2024Article
- Clinically significant findings in a decade-long retrospective study of prenatal chromosomal microarray testing.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2024Review
- The performance evaluation of NIPT for fetal chromosome microdeletion/microduplication detection: a retrospective analysis of 68,588 Chinese cases.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Diagnostic yield of copy number variation sequencing in fetuses with increased nuchal translucency: a retrospective 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study explores and discusses the possible factors affecting the positive predictive value (PPV) of non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) for the detection of fetal copy number variants (CNVs) in pregnant women.
methodsNIPS was performed for 50,972 pregnant women and 212 cases were suspected as fetal CNVs. Post additional genetic counseling for these women, 96 underwent invasive prenatal diagnosis (amniocentesis), following which they received chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). We analyzed the PPV of NIPS for the detection of fetal CNVs and the possible interference factors that could affect the PPV.
resultsAmong the 96 pregnant women that received prenatal diagnosis by CMA, 37 cases were confirmed to be true positive for fetal CNVs with a PPV of 38.5%. There was no significant difference between the women with different NIPS indications. Five cases were reported as the false positive and false negative of fetal CNVs and the differences were mainly reflected in the inconsistency of chromosome fragments. Depending on the sizes of the CNVs, the PPVs were 48.7% for CNVs < 3 Mb, 41.4% for CNVs falling within 3 ~ 5 Mb, 42.9% for the CNVs falling within 5 ~ 10 Mb, and 14.3% for CNVs > 10 Mb. Based on the chromosomal locations of CNVs, the PPV(4.8%) of the chromosomes of group C(including chromosomes 6 ~ 12), was lower than that of the other groups (41.2% ~ 66.7%) (p = 0.021). However, there were no significant differences in the CNV characteristics, fetal fractions, unique reads, and the Z-scores between these groups.
conclusionNIPS with a low-coverage sequencing depth has a certain effect on detection of fetal CNVs with the PPV of 38.5%. Chromosomal locations of CNVs may be the main factor that influences its effect. This study can contribute to an increased accuracy in genetic counseling and in predicting NIPS results that are positive for fetal CNVs.
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.