ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023
Noninvasive prenatal testing, ultrasonographic findings and poor prenatal diagnosis rates for twin pregnancies: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Amniocentesis and Risk of Fetal Loss in Dichorionic-Diamniotic Twin Pregnancy: A Case-Control Study.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Observational
- The efficacy of expanded non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in a high-risk twin pregnancies cohort.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 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
backgroundNoninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is increasingly used in the clinical prenatal screening of twin pregnancies, and its screening performance for chromosomal abnormalities requires further evaluation. For twin pregnancies with indications for prenatal diagnosis, there is a lack of clinical data to assess the prenatal diagnosis rate (PDR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the screening performance of NIPT for foetal chromosomal abnormalities in twin pregnancies and the PDR in the second and third trimesters.
methodsUltrasound scans were carried out for all twin pregnancies between 11 and 13
resultsIn 1754 twin pregnancies, the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of NIPT for trisomy 21 were 100%, 99.9% and 75%, and the corresponding values for sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA) were 100%, 99.9% and 50%, respectively. For the 14 twin pregnancies for which the NIPT results indicated a high risk of abnormalities, the PDR was 78.6% (11/14). For the 492 twin pregnancies for which the NIPT results indicated a low risk of abnormalities, the rate of USG findings in the second and third trimesters was 39.4% (194/492); of these pregnancies, prenatal diagnosis was recommended for 16.7% (82/492), but it was actually performed in only 8.3% (41/492), and the PDR was 50% (41/82). There was no significant difference in the PDR between the NIPT high-risk and low-risk groups.
conclusionsThe screening performance of NIPT for SCA in twin pregnancies needs to be further evaluated. When abnormal NIPT results or USG findings are used as the main prenatal diagnostic indicator in the second and third trimesters, the PDR is poor.
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.