Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36140685›Full record

ReviewGenes2022

Next Generation Sequencing after Invasive Prenatal Testing in Fetuses with Congenital Malformations: Prenatal or Neonatal Investigation.

Alexandra Emms, James Castleman, Stephanie Allen, Denise Williams, Esther Kinning, Mark Kilby

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Fetal gene therapy.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Assessing the Ethical Considerations in the Era of Advanced Prenatal Testing and Genetic Counselling - Clinicians' Perspective.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine
    Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alexandra EmmsWest Midlands Fetal Medicine Centre, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK.
James CastlemanWest Midlands Fetal Medicine Centre, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK.
Stephanie AllenWest Midlands Regional Genetics Laboratory, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK.
Denise WilliamsClinical Genetics Service, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK.
Esther KinningClinical Genetics Service, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK.
Mark KilbyWest Midlands Fetal Medicine Centre, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9987-4223
Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Congenital malformations diagnosed by ultrasound screening complicate 3-5% of pregnancies and many of these have an underlying genetic cause. Approximately 40% of prenatally diagnosed fetal malformations are associated with aneuploidy or copy number variants, detected by conventional karyotyping, QF-PCR and microarray techniques, however monogenic disorders are not diagnosed by these tests. Next generation sequencing as a secondary prenatal genetic test offers additional diagnostic yield for congenital abnormalities deemed to be potentially associated with an underlying genetic aetiology, as demonstrated by two large cohorts: the 'Prenatal assessment of genomes and exomes' (PAGE) study and 'Whole-exome sequencing in the evaluation of fetal structural anomalies: a prospective cohort study' performed at Columbia University in the US. These were large and prospective studies but relatively 'unselected' congenital malformations, with little Clinical Genetics input to the pre-test selection process. This review focuses on the incremental yield of next generation sequencing in single system congenital malformations, using evidence from the PAGE, Columbia and subsequent cohorts, with particularly high yields in those fetuses with cardiac and neurological anomalies, large nuchal translucency and non-immune fetal hydrops (of unknown aetiology). The total additional yield gained by exome sequencing in congenital heart disease was 12.7%, for neurological malformations 13.8%, 13.1% in increased nuchal translucency and 29% in non-immune fetal hydrops. This demonstrates significant incremental yield with exome sequencing in single-system anomalies and supports next generation sequencing as a secondary genetic test in routine clinical care of fetuses with congenital abnormalities.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHydrops FetalisFemaleFetusHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPregnancy Trimester, FirstProspective StudiesUltrasonography, Prenatalexomefetusgenomeneonatesequencing

Identifiers

PMID36140685
PMCPMC9498826
OpenAlexW4292999055

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.