ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2023
Experiences of pregnant women with genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing in a national screening program.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring measurement tools used to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of pregnant women toward prenatal screening: A systematic review.Women's health (London, England)Pooled it
- Accuracy of non-invasive prenatal screening compared with amniocentesis: A retrospective study.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2026Article
- Extracellular vesicles in assisted reproductive technology: A double-edged sword in fertility enhancement.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2026Article
- Genome-Wide Prenatal cfDNA Screening and the Obstetric Incidentalome: Maternal Cancer, Placental Mosaicism, and Pregnancy Risk.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- Screening Positive for Rare Autosomal Aneuploidies Increases Frequency of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes and Alters Clinical Management.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Patient Preferences and Understanding of Genome-Wide Cell-Free DNA Screening for Foetal Chromosomal Imbalances: A Survey Study.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Article
- Application of non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal chromosomal disorders in low-risk pregnancies: a follow-up study in central China.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Clinical-grade whole genome sequencing-based haplarithmisis enables all forms of preimplantation genetic testing.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Prenatal Screening of Chromosomal Anomalies Using Genome-Wide or Target Cell-Free DNA: Preferences and Satisfaction of Pregnant Women.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Disparities in integrating non-invasive prenatal testing into antenatal healthcare in Australia: a survey of healthcare professionals.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Genetic Screening-Emerging Issues.Genes · 2024Review
- Supporting patient decision-making in non-invasive prenatal testing: a comparative study of professional values and practices in England and France.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Factors affecting couples' decision making about expanded prenatal cell-free DNA screening.Genetics in medicine open · 2024Article
- Molecular explanations for variability of clinical phenotypes.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Patient attitudes and preferences about expanded noninvasive prenatal testing.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pregnant women's perspectives should be included in the dialogue surrounding the expanding offers of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), especially now that technological possibilities are rapidly increasing. This study evaluated women's experiences with the offer of genome-wide (GW) first-tier NIPT in a national screening program. A nationwide pre-and post-test questionnaire was completed by 473 pregnant women choosing between targeted NIPT (trisomies 21, 18 and 13 only) and GW-NIPT (also other findings) within the Dutch TRIDENT-2 study. Measures included satisfaction, reasons for or against choosing GW-NIPT, anxiety, and opinion on the future scope of NIPT. Most respondents (90.4%) were glad to have been offered the choice between GW-NIPT and targeted NIPT; 76.5% chose GW-NIPT. Main reasons to choose GW-NIPT were 'wanting as much information as possible regarding the child's health' (38.6%) and 'to be prepared for everything' (23.8%). Main reasons to choose targeted NIPT were 'avoiding uncertain results/outcomes' (33.7%) and 'not wanting to unnecessarily worry' (32.6%). Nearly all respondents received a low-risk NIPT result (98.7%). No differences were found in anxiety between women choosing GW-NIPT and targeted NIPT. Most respondents were favorable toward future prenatal screening for a range of conditions, including life-threatening disorders, mental disabilities, disorders treatable in pregnancy and severe physical disabilities, regardless of their choice for GW-NIPT or targeted NIPT. In conclusion, women who chose first-tier NIPT were satisfied with the choice between GW-NIPT and targeted NIPT, and most women were favorable toward a broader future screening offer. Our results contribute to the debate concerning the expansion of NIPT.
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.