ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Genome-Wide Cell-Free DNA Test for Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities and Variants: Unrestricted Versus Restricted Reporting.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- Cell-free DNA test for fetal chromosomal abnormalities in multiple pregnancies.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the screening performance of genome-wide cfDNA testing for chromosomal abnormalities between two periods where additional findings were reported and not reported. Data were obtained from consecutive pregnant women with a singleton pregnancy at ≥10 weeks who requested cfDNA testing during 2015-2019. The performance of screening of the cfDNA test was determined by calculating the concordance rate, detection rate, and false-positive rate. Data from 3981 women were included. The no-result rates were similar between the two reporting periods (2.04% vs. 2.08%). Concordance rates for trisomy 21 and 18 were 100% and 100%, respectively. There were two cases tested high risk for trisomy 13, with a concordance rate of 0%. In total, 12 cases were high risk for any sex chromosome aneuploidy with an overall concordance of 75%, and 15 cases tested high risk for any rare autosomal trisomy, with a 13.3% concordance rate. The detection rates for trisomy 21 and 18 were 100% and 100%, respectively. For any SCA, the detection rate was 90%. For the two reporting periods, the combined false-positive rates were 0.93% and 0.17%, which were significantly different (
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.