Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36266611›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022

Patient experience with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a primary screen for aneuploidy in the Netherlands.

Syanni A Kristalijn, Karen White, Deanna Eerbeek, Emilia Kostenko, Francesca Romana Grati, Caterina M Bilardo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Syanni A KristalijnMedical Affairs, Roche Diagnostics Netherlands, Almere, The Netherlands. syanni.kristalijn@roche.com.
Karen WhiteRoche Diagnostics, San Jose, CA, USA.
Deanna EerbeekManagement Policy Analysis and Entrepreneurship, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Emilia KostenkoRoche Diagnostics, San Jose, CA, USA.
Francesca Romana GratiTOMA Advanced Biomedical Assays Laboratory, Busto Arsizio, Varese, Italy.
Caterina M BilardoAmsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Roche (United States) · USAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLOspedale di Circolo di Busto Arsizio · ITRoche (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) as a screening method for trisomy 21 and other chromosomal abnormalities has been adopted widely across the globe. However, while many clinical validation studies have been performed, less is known regarding the patient experience with NIPT. This study explored how individuals experience NIPT in a pre- and post-test setting, where NIPT is broadly available as a primary screening method with the option of reporting beyond common trisomies.

methodsParticipants were recruited using social media with a strategy designed to select individuals who had the option to have NIPT as part of the TRIDENT-2 study (In the Netherlands, NIPT is only available within the TRIDENT studies executed by the NIPT consortium. This research was done independently from the NIPT consortium.) in the Netherlands. The study used online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Both were developed around a patient experience framework consisting of seven themes: information, patient as active participant, responsiveness of services, lived experience, continuity of care and relationships, communication, and support.

resultsOverall, 4539 questionnaire responses were analyzed and 60% of the respondents had experienced NIPT. Of those, 1.7% received a high-risk result for trisomy or another chromosomal copy number variant (referred to as an "additional finding"). Overall, participants felt they had received sufficient information and had control over their decision regarding whether or not to choose NIPT. The vast majority of respondents who had NIPT were positive about their experience and would use it again. Those with results showing an increased probability for trisomy or additional findings were more likely to report negative feelings such as tension and anxiety, and less likely to feel that they had been sufficiently prepared for the implications of their results.

conclusionsThe patient experience with first-tier NIPT in the Netherlands was largely positive. Areas for improvement included counseling on the implications of screening and the different possible outcomes of NIPT, including additional findings that may be uncovered by expanding NIPT beyond the common trisomies. The experiences reported in this study may be useful for other countries intending to implement NIPT.

Indexed as

Prenatal DiagnosisTrisomyAneuploidyFemaleHumansNetherlandsPatient Outcome AssessmentPregnancyGenetic counselingGenome-wideNon-invasive prenatal testingPatient experiencePrenatal screening

Identifiers

PMID36266611
PMCPMC9585792
OpenAlexW4306924974

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.