Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37884894›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2023

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): is routinization problematic?

Christoph Rehmann-Sutter, Daniëlle R M Timmermans, Aviad Raz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Attitudes About NIPT Routinisation: A Report from a Qualitative Study of 20 UK Healthcare Professionals.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): A Paradigm Shift in Prenatal Care.International journal of preventive medicine · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

3 authors.

Christoph Rehmann-SutterInstitute for History of Medicine and Science Studies, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany. rehmann@imgwf.uni-luebeck.de.ORCID 0000-0001-7642-5556
Daniëlle R M TimmermansAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3602-3875
Aviad RazDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be'er Sheva, Israel.ORCID 0000-0001-6268-0409

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe introduction and wide application of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has triggered further evolution of routines in the practice of prenatal diagnosis. 'Routinization' of prenatal diagnosis however has been associated with hampered informed choice and eugenic attitudes or outcomes. It is viewed, at least in some countries, with great suspicion in both bioethics and public discourse. However, it is a heterogeneous phenomenon that needs to be scrutinized in the wider context of social practices of reproductive genetics. In different countries with their different regulatory frameworks, different patterns of routines emerge that have different ethical implications. This paper discusses an ethics of routines informed by the perspectives of organizational sociology and psychology, where a routine is defined as a repetitive, recognizable pattern of interdependent organizational actions that is carried out by multiple performers. We favour a process approach that debunks the view - which gives way to most of the concerns - that routines are always blindly performed. If this is so, routines are therefore not necessarily incompatible with responsible decision-making. Free and informed decision-making can, as we argue, be a key criterion for the ethical evaluation of testing routines. If free and informed decision-making by each pregnant woman is the objective, routines in prenatal testing may not be ethically problematic, but rather are defensible and helpful. We compare recent experiences of NIPT routines in the context of prenatal screening programmes in Germany, Israel and the Netherlands. Notable variation can be observed between these three countries (i) in the levels of routinization around NIPT, (ii) in the scope of routinization, and (iii) in public attitudes toward routinized prenatal testing.

conclusionAn ethics of routines in the field of prenatal diagnostics should incorporate and work with the necessary distinctions between levels and forms of routines, in order to develop sound criteria for their evaluation.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingPrenatal DiagnosisAttitudeFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnant PeopleReproductionInformed decision-makingNon-invasive prenatal testingPrenatal diagnosisReproductive autonomyRoutinization

Identifiers

PMID37884894
PMCPMC10604734

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.