Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36778193›Full record

ReviewCurrent genomics2022

Non-invasive Prenatal Testing in Pregnancies Following Assisted Reproduction.

Vandana Kamath, Mary Purna Chacko, Mohan S Kamath

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current genomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vandana KamathDepartment of Cytogenetics, Christian Medical College, Vellore 632004, India.
Mary Purna ChackoDepartment of Cytogenetics, Christian Medical College, Vellore 632004, India.
Mohan S KamathDepartment of Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Christian Medical College, Vellore 632004, India.
Christian Medical College, Vellore · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the decade since non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) was first implemented as a prenatal screening tool, it has gained recognition for its sensitivity and specificity in the detection of common aneuploidies. This review mainly focuses on the emerging role of NIPT in pregnancies following assisted reproductive technology (ART) in the light of current evidence and recommendations. It also deals with the challenges, shortcomings and interpretational difficulties related to NIPT in ART pregnancies, with particular emphasis on twin and vanishing twin pregnancies, which are widely regarded as the Achilles' heel of most pre-natal screening platforms. Future directions for exploration towards improving the performance and extending the scope of NIPT are also addressed.

Indexed as

aneuploidyARTassisted reproductionNIPTnon-invasivepregnancyprenatal screening

Identifiers

PMID36778193
PMCPMC9878858
OpenAlexW4280503194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.