Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36636555›Full record

ArticleGenetics research2022

Assessment of Combined Karyotype Analysis and Chromosome Microarray Analysis in Prenatal Diagnosis: A Cohort Study of 3710 Pregnancies.

Jin Wang, Danni Wang, Yan Yin, Yi Deng, Mengling Ye, Ping Wei, Zhuo Zhang, Chun Chen, Shengfang Qin, Xueyan Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

10 authors.

Jin WangDepartment of Medical Genetics and Prenatal Diagnosis, Sichuan Provincial Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Chengdu 610003, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4961-6618
Danni WangDepartment of Medical Genetics and Prenatal Diagnosis, Sichuan Provincial Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Chengdu 610003, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8097-0119
Yan YinDepartment of Medical Genetics and Prenatal Diagnosis, Sichuan Provincial Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Chengdu 610003, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9134-3559
Yi DengDepartment of Medical Genetics and Prenatal Diagnosis, Sichuan Provincial Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Chengdu 610003, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9829-207X
Mengling YeDepartment of Medical Genetics and Prenatal Diagnosis, Sichuan Provincial Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Chengdu 610003, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7101-7641
Ping WeiDepartment of Medical Genetics and Prenatal Diagnosis, Sichuan Provincial Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Chengdu 610003, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9797-9830
Zhuo ZhangDepartment of Medical Genetics and Prenatal Diagnosis, Sichuan Provincial Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Chengdu 610003, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2095-8246
Chun ChenDepartment of Medical Genetics and Prenatal Diagnosis, Sichuan Provincial Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Chengdu 610003, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7736-6498
Shengfang QinDepartment of Medical Genetics and Prenatal Diagnosis, Sichuan Provincial Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Chengdu 610003, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9391-890X
Xueyan WangDepartment of Medical Genetics and Prenatal Diagnosis, Sichuan Provincial Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Chengdu 610003, China.ORCID 0000-0003-1277-9165

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Chromosome DisordersAbnormal KaryotypeChromosome AberrationsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceKaryotypingMicroarray AnalysisMosaicismPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID36636555
PMCPMC9815932

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.