ArticleGenetics research2022
Assessment of Combined Karyotype Analysis and Chromosome Microarray Analysis in Prenatal Diagnosis: A Cohort Study of 3710 Pregnancies.
Article in Genetics research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Cytogenetic and Molecular Genetic Tests in Patients with Short Stature.Molecular syndromology · 2026Article
- Application of chromosomal microarray analysis for prenatal diagnosis in 315 ultrasonically abnormal fetuses.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Demystifying the gender of patient after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation from an opposite-sex donor: A case report.Medicine · 2025Article
- SVseq discloses the genomic complexity of different prenatal, de novo, apparently balanced chromosome rearrangements detected by CMA and karyotype.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Complementary role of echocardiography, karyotyping, and chromosomal microarray in congenital cardiac anomalies.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Karyotyping with amniotic fluid in 6,572 pregnant women and pregnancy outcomes--A single-center retrospective study.PloS one · 2025Article
- A retrospective analysis of 38,652 amniotic fluid karyotype.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- A near-complete assembly of the Houttuynia cordata genome provides insights into the regulatory mechanism of flavonoid biosynthesis in Yuxingcao.Plant communications · 2024Article
- The Impact of Chromosomal Mosaicisms on Prenatal Diagnosis and Genetic Counseling-A Narrative Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Prenatal diagnosis of a trisomy 7 mosaic case: CMA, CNV-seq, karyotyping, interphase FISH, and MS-MLPA, which technique to choose?BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Evaluation the Application of Karyotype Analysis and Chromosome Microarray in Prenatal Diagnosis.Iranian journal of public health · 2024Article
- PIBF1 regulates multiple gene expression via impeding long-range chromatin interaction to drive the malignant transformation of HPV16 integration epithelial cells.Journal of advanced research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The current study aimed to compare the characteristics of chromosome abnormalities detected by conventional G-banding karyotyping, chromosome microarray analysis (CMA), or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)/CNVplex analysis and further explore the application value of combined karyotype analysis and CMA in prenatal diagnosis with a larger sample size. Methods: From March 2019 to March 2021, 3710 amniocentesis samples were retrospectively collected from women who accepted prenatal diagnosis at 16 to 22 + 6 weeks of pregnancy. The pregnant women underwent karyotype analysis and CMA. In the case of fetal chromosomal mosaicism, FISH or CNVplex analysis was utilized for validation. Results: In total, 3710 G-banding karyotype results and CMA results from invasive prenatal diagnosis were collected. Of these, 201 (5.41%) fetuses with an abnormal karyotype were observed. The CMA analysis showed that the abnormality rate was 9.14% (340/3710). The detection rate of CMA combined with karyotype analysis was 0.35% higher than that of CMA alone and 4.08% higher than that of karyotyping alone. Additionally, 12 cases had abnormal karyotype analysis, despite normal CMA results. To further detect the chromosome mosaicism, we used FISH analysis to correct the karyotype results of case 1. Correspondingly, a total of 157 cases showed abnormal CMA results but normal karyotype analysis. We also found chromosomal mosaicism in 4 cases using CMA. Moreover, CNVplex and CMA demonstrated that representative case 15 was mosaicism for trisomy 2. Conclusions: Conventional G-banding karyotyping and CMA have their own advantages and limitations. A combination of karyotype analysis and CMA can increase the detection rate of chromosome abnormalities and make up for the limitation of signal detection.
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.