ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2024
Psychological impact of additional findings detected by genome-wide Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): TRIDENT-2 study.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- When screening and diagnosis converge: participant interpretations of additional findings in the 100,000 genomes project.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Genome-Wide Prenatal cfDNA Screening and the Obstetric Incidentalome: Maternal Cancer, Placental Mosaicism, and Pregnancy Risk.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- AI-driven high-risk pregnancy prediction: balancing early detection, anxiety, and discrimination in digital public health.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Expanding the scope of non-invasive prenatal screening.Nature genetics · 2025Review
- Article
- Repeat cell-free DNA screening after initial false-positive results and term placental analysis for confined mosaicism: a prospective cohort study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Patient Preferences and Understanding of Genome-Wide Cell-Free DNA Screening for Foetal Chromosomal Imbalances: A Survey Study.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Healthcare professionals' experiences with expanded noninvasive prenatal screening: challenges and solutions.Journal of community genetics · 2025Article
- Application of non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal chromosomal disorders in low-risk pregnancies: a follow-up study in central China.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Placental biomarkers for the prediction of neurodevelopmental disorders.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Observational
- Psycho-Emotional Aspects of Pregnant Women Diagnosed with a Rare Disease: A Systematic Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Review
- Prenatal Screening of Chromosomal Anomalies Using Genome-Wide or Target Cell-Free DNA: Preferences and Satisfaction of Pregnant Women.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Solving medical mysteries with genomics.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In the Netherlands, genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is offered to all pregnant women as part of the nationwide TRIDENT-2 study. Findings other than trisomy 21, 18, or 13, which are called "additional findings", are reported only on request of the pregnant woman. This study examined: (1) women's pre-test perceptions and reasons to opt for additional findings and (2) women's experiences with- and the psychological impact of being informed about an additional finding. A questionnaire, consisting of the anxiety measure State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), distress measure Impact of Event Scale (IES) and questions developed specifically for this study, was retrospectively administered to 402 women who received an additional finding. A total of 227 (56.5%) women completed the questionnaire. Most (60.2%) chose to know additional findings because they wanted as much information as possible about the health of their fetus. Almost all (92%) stated that receiving the additional finding was unexpected, a shock, and/or they were in disbelief, for 85% it caused a lot of worry. Post-test, high anxiety (STAI) levels were reported in 15.5% of women, and 7.5% reported severe distress (IES). Women who gave birth to an affected child (n = 10) experienced most psychological impact (STAI and IES). Eighty-six percent of women with a fetal aberration would opt for additional findings again, compared to 49.2% of women whose result was confined to the placenta. Pre-test counseling should focus on explaining the different results NIPT can generate. Post-test counseling should focus on guiding pregnant women through this uncertain and anxious time.
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.