Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36295632›Full record

ReviewMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2022

Invasive Prenatal Diagnostic Testing for Aneuploidies in Singleton Pregnancies: A Comparative Review of Major Guidelines.

Eirini Giovannopoulou, Ioannis Tsakiridis, Apostolos Mamopoulos, Ioannis Kalogiannidis, Ioannis Papoulidis, Apostolos Athanasiadis, Themistoklis Dagklis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

7 authors.

Eirini GiovannopoulouThird Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Ioannis TsakiridisThird Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-4337-7871
Apostolos MamopoulosThird Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-2605-0765
Ioannis KalogiannidisThird Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-6007-5341
Ioannis PapoulidisThird Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Apostolos AthanasiadisThird Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.
Themistoklis DagklisThird Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-2863-5839

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AmniocentesisChorionic Villi SamplingAneuploidyFemaleHumansMaternal AgePregnancyPrenatal Diagnosisamniocentesischorionic villous sampling (CVS)complicationsindicationsinvasive prenatal diagnostic testingtechnique

Identifiers

PMID36295632
PMCPMC9609299

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.