ArticlePloS one2023
Maternal prenatal screening programs that predict trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and neural tube defects in offspring.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive value of the maternal alpha-fetoprotein variant, L2, during the first trimester of pregnancy screening for fetal trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and neural tube defects.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the prenatal diagnostic value of non-invasive prenatal testing for the detection of rare fetal autosomal trisomies: a single center study of 83,842 cases.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Application of Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction (dPCR) in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT).Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a prenatal predictive nomogram for the risk of NICU admission in infants born to Chinese mothers over 35 years of age: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the efficacy of three different maternal screening programs (first-trimester screening [FTS], individual second-trimester screening [ISTS], and first- and second-trimester combined screening [FSTCS]) in predicting offspring with trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and neural tube defects (NTDs).
methodsA retrospective cohort involving 108,118 pregnant women who received prenatal screening tests during the first (9-13+6 weeks) and second trimester (15-20+6 weeks) in Hangzhou, China from January-December 2019, as follows: FTS, 72,096; ISTS, 36,022; and FSTCS, 67,631 gravidas.
resultThe high and intermediate risk positivity rates for trisomy 21 screening with FSTCS (2.40% and 5.57%) were lower than ISTS (9.02% and 16.14%) and FTS (2.71% and 7.19%); there were statistically significant differences in the positivity rates among the screening programs (all P < 0.05). Detection of trisomy 21 was as follows: ISTS, 68.75%; FSTCS, 63.64%; and FTS, 48.57%. Detection of trisomy 18 was as follows; FTS and FSTCS, 66.67%; and ISTS, 60.00%. There were no statistical differences in the detection rates for trisomy 21 and 18 among the 3 screening programs (all P > 0.05). The positive predictive values (PPVs) for trisomy 21 and 18 were highest with FTS, while the false positive rate (FPR) was lowest with FSTCS.
conclusionFSTCS was superior to FTS and ISTS screening and substantially reduced the number of high risk pregnancies for trisomy 21 and 18; however, FSTCS was not significantly different in detecting fetal trisomy 21 and 18 and other confirmed cases with chromosomal abnormalities.
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.