ArticleCureus2022
Comparing Non-invasive Prenatal Testing With Invasive Testing for the Detection of Trisomy 21.
Article in Cureus, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the Origins of Biochemical Dysregulation in Trisomy 21 Pregnancy.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) is an intermediate step between serum screening and invasive diagnostic testing. It involves analysis of the cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) present in the maternal blood sample for determining the likelihood of fetal aneuploidy. Owing to its high sensitivity and specificity, NIPT has quickly gained popularity across the globe since its introduction to clinical practice, making it an attractive alternative to the available screening and diagnostic tests in use. Amniocentesis is currently the gold standard test for obtaining fetal DNA and diagnosing fetal trisomy prenatally, but it is invasive and has procedure-related adverse effects. This study aims to compare NIPT and amniocentesis in pregnancies screened positive for fetal trisomy. Material and methods This is an analytic cross-sectional prospective study conducted in the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Patna Medical College and Hospital, for two and half years from December 2018 to June 2021. A total of 34 pregnant women screened positive for trisomy 21, attending the antenatal care outpatient department, in their second trimester, with their written consent, were enrolled in the study. Results Out of 34 pregnant patients, three refused NIPT and directly opted for amniocentesis. A total of 31 pregnant women have undergone NIPT. A total of 28 cases were positive for trisomy 21 on both NIPT and amniocentesis. The sensitivity of NIPT was 100% with the confidence interval being 87.66% to 100.00%. The specificity of NIPT was 100% with the confidence interval being 29.24% to 100.00%. Conclusion The high performance and effectiveness of NIPT are undeniable. Though the process by which this test has to be integrated into the clinical practice needs more study and should be determined with meticulous assessment.
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.