Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35806909›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Prenatal Diagnosis Using Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in High-Risk Pregnancies.

Ching-Hua Hsiao, Jia-Shing Chen, Yu-Ming Shiao, Yann-Jang Chen, Ching-Hsuan Chen, Woei-Chyn Chu, Yi-Cheng Wu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Current Applications and Future Prospects of High-ThroughputAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ching-Hua HsiaoDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Jia-Shing ChenSchool of Medicine for International Students, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung 840, Taiwan.
Yu-Ming ShiaoDepartment of Bioscience Technology, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan 320, Taiwan.
Yann-Jang ChenDepartment of Life Sciences and Institute of Genome Sciences, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Ching-Hsuan ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Taipei City Hospital, Women and Children Campus, Taipei 100, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-1182-8191
Woei-Chyn ChuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Yi-Cheng WuDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-1036-445X
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWChung Yuan Christian University · TWI-Shou University · TWTaipei City Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: To assess the value of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) during the prenatal diagnosis of high-risk pregnancies. Methods: Between January 2016 and November 2021, we included 178 chorionic villi and 859 amniocentesis samples from consecutive cases at a multiple tertiary hospital. Each of these high-risk singleton pregnancies had at least one of the following indications: (1) advanced maternal age (AMA; ≥35 years; 546, 52.7%); (2) fetal structural abnormality on ultrasound (197, 19.0%); (3) high-risk first- or second-trimester Down syndrome screen (189, 18.2%), including increased nuchal translucency (≥3.5 mm; 90, 8.7%); or (4) previous pregnancy, child, or family history (105, 10.1%) affected by chromosomal abnormality or genetic disorder. Both G-banding karyotype analysis and CMA were performed. DNA was extracted directly and examined with oligonucleotide array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Results: Aneuploidies were detected by both G-banding karyotyping and CMA in 42/1037 (4.05%) cases. Among the 979 cases with normal karyotypes, 110 (10.6%) cases had copy number variants (CNVs) in CMA, including 30 (2.9%) cases with reported pathogenic and likely pathogenic CNVs ≥ 400 kb, 37 (3.6%) with nonreported VOUS, benign, or likely benign CNVs ≥ 400 kb, and 43 (4.1%) with nonreported CNVs < 400 kb. Of the 58 (5.6%) cases with aneuploidy rearrangements, 42 (4.1%) were diagnosed by both G-banding karyotyping and CMA; four inversions, six balanced translocations, and six low mosaic rates were not detected with CMA. Conclusions: CMA is an effective first step for the prenatal diagnosis of high-risk pregnancies with fetal structural anomalies found in ultrasonography or upon positive findings.

Indexed as

amniotic fluid (AF)chorionic villus sampling (CVS)chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA)copy number variants (CNVs)variants of unknown significance (VOUS)

Identifiers

PMID35806909
PMCPMC9267905
OpenAlexW4283383846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.