ReviewMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2022
Invasive Prenatal Diagnostic Testing for Aneuploidies in Singleton Pregnancies: A Comparative Review of Major Guidelines.
Review in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- First-Trimester Ultrasound: A Comparative Review of Guidelines.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A prospective study of non-invasive prenatal screening technology in preimplantation genetic testing cycles.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Results and indications changes by prenatal diagnosis of 3,458 pregnant women: a 10-year retrospective study.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Transcervical, Transabdominal and Transvaginal Chorionic Villus Sampling for Prenatal Diagnosis in Zagreb, Croatia: A Prospective Single-Operator Study on 5500 Cases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Real-world antibiotic utilization during pregnancy in Italy: a multiregional retrospective population-based study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Amniocentesis in pregnancies at or beyond 24 weeks: an international multicenter study.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2025Article
- Metabolomic Profiling of Second-Trimester Amniotic Fluid for Predicting Preterm Delivery: Insights from NMR Analysis.Metabolites · 2023Article
- Placenta Accreta Spectrum Diagnosis Challenges and Controversies in Current Obstetrics: A Review.International journal of women's health · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sophisticated screening protocols for genetic abnormalities constitute an important component of current prenatal care, aiming to identify high-risk pregnancies and offer appropriate counseling to parents regarding their options. Definite prenatal diagnosis is only possible by invasive prenatal diagnostic testing (IPDT), mainly including amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling (CVS). The aim of this comparative review was to summarize and compare the existing recommendations on IPDT from the most influential guidelines. All the reviewed guidelines highlight that IPDT is indicated based on a positive screening test rather than maternal age alone. Other indications arise from medical history and sonography, with significant variations identified between the guidelines. The earlier time for amniocentesis is unequivocally set at ≥15 gestational weeks, whereas for CVS, the earlier limit varies from ≥10 to ≥11 weeks. Certain technical aspects and the overall approach demonstrate significant differences. Periprocedural management regarding Rhesus alloimmunization, virologic status and use of anesthesia or antibiotics are either inconsistent or insufficiently addressed. The synthesis of an evidence-based algorithm for IPDT is of crucial importance to healthcare professionals implicated in prenatal care to avoid unnecessary interventions without compromising optimal prenatal care.
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.