ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2022
A novel method for extracting circulating cell-free DNA from whole blood samples and its utility in the non-invasive prenatal test.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe verified a magnetic bead-based, simple, and fast method for circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) extraction from whole blood samples(CEWB) and characterised its utility in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT).
methodWe extracted cfDNA from both plasma and whole blood of the patients using CEWB and compared it to that extracted using a Qiagen extraction kit; droplet digital polymerase chain reaction test was used to calculate the fragment size bias. In all, 304 samples were used for NIPT.
resultsThe CEWB group (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: 4.34 ± 0.41 ng/ml plasma) reported less DNA weight yield than the Qiagen group (4.90 ± 0.50 ng/ml plasma). There was no significant difference between the CEWB group and the Qiagen group in the gene fragments (136 bp: p = 0.064 and 420 bp: p = 0.534). In a parallel cohort study to characterise the utility of the CEWB method in NIPT, the treatment group extracted by CEWB showed a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 99.65%, and a positive predictive value of 95%.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that CEWB achieves an acceptable yield of DNA without contamination from genomic DNA. Subsequent clinical experiments in a parallel cohort indicated its utility for NIPT.
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.