ArticleGenes2023
Should Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Analysis Be Offered for Pulmonary Atresia? A Single-Center Retrospective Study in China.
Article in Genes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fetal Copy Number Variant Detection in Pregnancies with Ultrasound Soft Markers: A Maternal Age-Stratified Retrospective Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Objective: To evaluate the application of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in fetuses with pulmonary atresia (PA) and to explore the risk factors for predicting chromosomal imbalances and adverse perinatal outcomes. (2) Methods: This study investigated 428 cases of PA singleton pregnancies that were tested using CMA and quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) as first-line genetic testing. The PA cases were divided into two groups: an isolated group and a non-isolated group. (3) Results: CMA revealed clinically relevant copy number variations (CNVs) in 9/139 (6.47%) PA fetuses, i.e., pathogenic copy number variations (pCNVs) in 8/139 (5.76%) fetuses and likely pathogenic CNVs in 1/139 (0.72%) fetuses. Stratified analysis showed that the incidence of clinically significant variants was higher in non-isolated PA fetuses than in isolated PA fetuses (12.50%, 6/48 vs. 3.30%, 3/91,
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.