ReviewEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2023
Prenatal diagnosis after high chance non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13, chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis? - Experience at a district general hospital in the United Kingdom.
Review in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trophoblast Enrichment by Maternal Immune-Cell Depletion Using CD45 and CD56 Surface Markers in Trophoblast Retrieval and Isolation from the Cervix (TRIC).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Genetic services in Pakistan: a review highlighting limitations and opportunities for improvement.Journal of community genetics · 2026Article
- Sex Ratios at Birth Following Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in Victoria, Australia.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Chorionic Villus Sampling in the Era of Genomic Medicine: A Gateway to Early and Personalized Prenatal Diagnosis.The application of clinical genetics · 2026Article
- The Art (and Science) of Individualized Selection of Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening (NIPS).International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- The Emerging Role of Sonoelastography in Pregnancy: Applications in Assessing Maternal and Fetal Health.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Importance of a detailed anomaly scan after a cfDNA test indicating fetal trisomy 21, 18 or 13.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Test Versus Chorionic Villus Sampling, Where Are We Now?Maternal-fetal medicine (Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.) · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) analyses cell-free DNA (cfDNA) derived from the placental tissue in the maternal circulation. Though highly sensitive and specific, a major limitation is in cases of confined placental mosaicism (CPM). Whether to perform chorionic villus sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis to confirm a positive NIPT result is controversial. One major drawback of CVS is that cytogenetic diagnosis may not always reflect the true chromosomal make-up of the fetus. This work, therefore, proposes the use of amniocentesis in the presence of normal ultrasound findings, and the option of either CVS or amniocentesis when there are abnormal USS findings.
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.