ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Genetic etiology and pregnancy outcomes of fetuses with central nervous system anomalies.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic yield of chromosomal microarray analysis and exome sequencing in fetuses with central nervous system anomalies, with long-term follow-up: a single-center study over a 17-year period.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations in fetuses with ventriculomegaly: a multicenter retrospective study.Molecular cytogenetics · 2026Article
- Genetic and clinical features of microcephaly in a prenatal cohort.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Prenatal diagnosis and molecular cytogenetic characterization of fetuses with central nervous system anomalies using chromosomal microarray analysis: a seven-year single-center retrospective study.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate genetic etiology and pregnancy outcomes of fetal central nervous system (CNS) anomalies.
methods217 fetuses with CNS anomalies were included in our cohort from January 2016 to December 2022. 124 cases received karyotyping and 73 cases simultaneously underwent copy number variant sequencing (CNV-seq). Dynamic ultrasound screening and pregnancy outcomes were followed up, including neonates' neurodevelopmental outcomes.
results(1) 20 types of CNS anomalies were revealed by ultrasound and the most common was ventriculomegaly. (2) 14 (11.3%) of 124 cases were found chromosomal abnormalities by karyotyping, and copy number variations (CNVs) were revealed in 13 (17.8%) of 73 cases by CNV-seq. Fetuses with non-isolated CNS anomalies had a higher detection rate (DR) of abnormal karyotypes and CNVs than those with isolated CNS anomalies (25.0% vs. 4.8%; 35.0% vs. 11.3%) (P < 0.05). And the DR of abnormal karyotypes was significantly higher in multiple CNS anomalies than in single CNS anomaly (16.7% vs. 2.8%, P < 0.05), while there were no significant differences in the DR of CNVs. (3) Through dynamic ultrasound, 12 cases were further found progression or additional malformations. (4) Pregnancy outcomes of 209 cases were obtained, including 136 (65.1%) live births, 3 (1.4%) intrauterine fetal deaths, and 70 (33.5%) terminated. Two neonatal deaths at 6 months and one infant with motor and intellectual disabilities were finally found after long-term follow-up.
conclusionGenetic analysis combined with dynamic ultrasound screening and multidisciplinary consultation plays an important role in evaluating the prognosis of fetal CNS anomalies, especially for those with multiple CNS or extracranial abnormalities.
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.