ArticlePloS one2023
Prenatal screening tests and prevalence of fetal aneuploidies in a tertiary hospital in Thailand.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prenatal Screening for Common Aneuploidy in Southeast Asian Countries: A Systematic Review of Challenges and Opportunities.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of an animated educational video on knowledge of cell-free DNA screening among Thai pregnant women: a randomized control trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Trial
- Awareness and attitudes of pregnant women about prenatal screening and diagnostic tests from Türkiye.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Application of Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction (dPCR) in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT).Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Effectiveness of Fetal Medicine Foundation's Non-Biochemical Risk Calculation Algorithm in Detection of Common Trisomies Screening at 11-13 weeks of Gestation: 12 Years' Experience in Northern Thailand.International journal of women's health · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated prenatal screening test performance and the prevalence of common aneuploidies at Siriraj Hospital, Thailand. We collected data from screening tests which are first-trimester test, quadruple test, and noninvasive prenatal tests (NIPT) between January 2016 and December 2020. Thirty percent (7,860/25,736) of pregnancies received prenatal screening tests for aneuploidies disorders, and 17.8% underwent prenatal diagnosis tests without screening. The highest percentage of screening tests was first-trimester test (64.5%). The high-risk results were 4% for first-trimester test, 6.6% for quadruple test, and 1.3% for NIPT. The serum screening tests for trisomy 13 and 18 had no true positives; therefore, we could not calculate sensitivity. For the first-trimester test, the sensitivity for trisomy 21 was 71.4% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 30.3-94.9); specificity for trisomy 13 and 18 was 99.9% (95% CI 99.8-99.9); and for trisomy 21 was 96.1% (95% CI 95.6-96.7). For the quadruple test, the specificity for trisomy 18 was 99.6% (95% CI 98.9-99.8), while the sensitivity and specificity for trisomy 21 were 50% (95% CI 26.7-97.3) and 93.9% (95% CI 92.2-95.3), respectively. NIPT had 100% sensitivity and specificity for trisomy 13, 18 and 21, and there were neither false negatives nor false positives. For pregnant women < 35 years, the prevalence of trisomy 13, 18, and 21 per 1,000 births was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12-0.67), 0.28 (95% CI 0.12-0.67), and 0.89 (95% CI 0.54-1.45), respectively. For pregnant women ≥35 years, the prevalence of trisomy 13, 18, and 21 per 1,000 births was 0.26 (95% CI 0.06-1.03), 2.59 (95% CI 1.67-4.01), and 7.25 (95% CI 5.58-9.41), respectively. For all pregnancies, the prevalence of trisomy 13, 18, and 21 per 1,000 births was 0.27 (95% CI 0.13-0.57), 0.97 (95% CI 0.66-1.44), 2.80 (95% CI 2.22-3.52), respectively.
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.