ArticlePeerJ2023
Prenatal diagnosis of fetuses conceived by assisted reproductive technology by karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular genetic and pregnancy outcomes of fetuses with increased Nuchal Translucency.PloS one · 2026Article
- The accuracy and real resolution of karyotyping technique in detecting chromosomal aberrations identified by molecular genetic methods.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Invasive prenatal evaluation by chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and karyotyping might represent an important option in pregnant women, but limited reports have applied CMA and karyotyping of fetuses conceived by assisted reproductive technology (ART). This study aimed to examine the value of CMA and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis after ART. Methods: This retrospective study included all singleton fetuses conceived by ART from January 2015 to December 2021. Anomalies prenatally diagnosed based on karyotyping and CMA were analyzed. Prevalence rates for various CMA and karyotyping results were stratified based on specific testing indications including isolated-and non-isolated ART groups. The rates of CMA findings with clinical significance (pathogenic/likely pathogenic) and karyotype anomalies were assessed and compared to those of local control individuals with naturally conceived pregnancies and without medical indications. Results: In total, 224 subjects were assessed by karyotyping and CMA. In the examined patients, chromosomal and karyotype abnormality rates were 3.57% (8/224) and 8.93% (20/224), respectively. This finding indicated a 5.35% (12/224)-incremental rate of abnormal CMA was obtained over karyotype analysis ( Conclusions: Prenatal diagnosis including karyotyping and CMA is recommended for fetuses conceived by ART, with or without ultrasound findings.
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.