Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37535243›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology reports2023

Analysis of retest reliability for pregnant women undergoing cfDNA testing with a no-call result.

Shuqiong He, Qian Zhang, Meihuan Chen, Xuemei Chen, Bin Liang, Na Lin, Hailong Huang, Liangpu Xu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shuqiong He *Medical Genetic Diagnosis and Therapy Center, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Key Laboratory for Prenatal Diagnosis and Birth Defect, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Qian Zhang *Medical Genetic Diagnosis and Therapy Center, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Key Laboratory for Prenatal Diagnosis and Birth Defect, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4311-967X
Meihuan ChenMedical Genetic Diagnosis and Therapy Center, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Key Laboratory for Prenatal Diagnosis and Birth Defect, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Xuemei ChenMedical Genetic Diagnosis and Therapy Center, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Key Laboratory for Prenatal Diagnosis and Birth Defect, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Bin LiangMedical Genetic Diagnosis and Therapy Center, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Key Laboratory for Prenatal Diagnosis and Birth Defect, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Na LinMedical Genetic Diagnosis and Therapy Center, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Key Laboratory for Prenatal Diagnosis and Birth Defect, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China. linna1088@fjmu.edu.cn.
Hailong HuangMedical Genetic Diagnosis and Therapy Center, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Key Laboratory for Prenatal Diagnosis and Birth Defect, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China. huanghailong@fjmu.edu.cn.
Liangpu XuMedical Genetic Diagnosis and Therapy Center, Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Key Laboratory for Prenatal Diagnosis and Birth Defect, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China. xiliangpu@fjmu.edu.cn.
Fujian Medical University · CN

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province 2020J01339Startup Fund for scientific research, Fujian Medical University 2021QH1180
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDetermining the reasons for unreportable or no-call cell-free DNA (cfDNA) test results has been an ongoing issue, and a consensus on subsequent management is still lacking. This study aimed to explore potential factors related to no-call cfDNA test results and to discuss whether retest results are reliable. METHODS AND

resultsThis was a retrospective study of women with singleton pregnancies undergoing cfDNA testing in 2021. Of the 9871 pregnant patients undergoing cfDNA testing, 111 had a no-call result, and their results were compared to those of 170 control patients. The no-call rate was 1.12% (111/9871), and the primary cause for no-call results was data fluctuation (88.29%, 98/111). Medical conditions were significantly more frequent in the no-call group than in the reportable results group (P < 0.001). After retesting, 107 (107/111, 96.40%) patients had a result, and the false-positive rate (FPR) of retesting was 10.09% (10.09%, 11/109). In addition, placental lesions were more frequent in the no-call group than in the reportable results group (P = 0.037), and 4 patients, all in the no-call group, experienced pregnancy loss.

conclusionsPregnant women with medical conditions are more likely to have a no-call result. A retest is suggested for patients with a no-call result, but retests have a high FPR. In addition, pregnant women with a no-call result are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. In conclusion, more attention should be given to pregnant women for whom a no-call cfDNA result is obtained.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousCell-Free Nucleic AcidsFemaleHumansPlacentaPregnancyPregnant PeoplePrenatal DiagnosisReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesCell-Free Nucleic AcidsAdverse pregnancy outcomesCell-free DNA testFalse-positive rateMedical conditionsNo-callUnreportable

Identifiers

PMID37535243
PMCPMC10460704
OpenAlexW4385502313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.