ArticleGenes2023
Prenatal Chromosomal Microarray Analysis: Does Increased Resolution Equal Increased Yield?
Article in Genes, 2023. 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.
- Advancing Prenatal Diagnosis: From Conventional Karyotyping to Genome-Wide CNV Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Molecular diagnosis of inherited platelet disorders: a tale of two realities - advanced vs. resource-limited setting.Thrombosis journal · 2025Review
- Advancements in Prenatal Genetic Screening and Testing: Emerging Technologies and Evolving Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Diagnostic performance of chromosomal microarray and whole exome sequencing in fetal structural anomalies: a single-center retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is considered a first-tier test for patients with developmental disabilities and congenital anomalies and is also routinely applied in prenatal diagnosis. The current consensus size cut-off for reporting copy number variants (CNVs) in the prenatal setting ranges from 200 Kb to 400 Kb, with the intention of minimizing the impact of variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Very limited data are currently available on the application of higher resolution platforms prenatally. The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility and impact of applying high-resolution CMA in the prenatal setting. To that end, we report on the outcomes of applying CMA with a size cut-off of 20 Kb in 250 prenatal samples and discuss the findings and diagnostic yield and also provide follow-up for cases with variants of uncertain significance. Overall, 19.6% (49) showed one or more chromosomal abnormalities, with the findings classified as Pathogenic (P) or Likely Pathogenic (LP) in 15.6% and as VUS in 4%. When excluding the cases with known familial aberrations, the diagnostic yield was 12%. The smallest aberration detected was a 32 Kb duplication of the 16p11.2 region. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that prenatal diagnosis with a high-resolution aCGH platform can reliably detect smaller CNVs that are often associated with neurodevelopmental phenotypes while providing an increased diagnostic yield, regardless of the indication for testing, with only a marginal increase in the VUS incidence. Thus, it can be an important tool in the prenatal setting.
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.