ArticleAdvances in laboratory medicine2020
Assessment of a change of protocol of prenatal screening by inclusion of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis.
Article in Advances in laboratory medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) is a test for the detection of major fetal chromosomal abnormalities in maternal blood during pregnancy. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of NIPS implemented within the framework of the Screening Program for Congenital Abnormalities of the Andalusian Health System. Methods: A retrospective observational study was undertaken to determine the number of NIPS tests performed since its introduction. The number of invasive diagnostic tests done after the implementation of NIPS in the patients included in the program between March 2016 and August 2017 was also quantified. Results: A total of 6,258 combined first- and second trimester screening tests were performed, covering 95% of the population. In total, 250 subjects were identified as high risk, of whom 200 underwent NIPS after loss to follow-up. NIPS showed a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 76.84-100%) and a specificity of 99.46% (95% CI: 97.04-99.99%). Conclusions: This test has proven to have a very high sensitivity and specificity. The results obtained demonstrate that the incorporation of NIPS in clinical practice minimizes the rate of miscarriages and reduces the frequency of invasive procedures by 70%.
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.