Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38089918›Full record

ArticleCurrent genetic medicine reports2017

Expanding Use of cfDNA Screening in Pregnancy: Current and Emerging Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues.

Lindsay Parham, Marsha Michie, Megan Allyse

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current genetic medicine reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Supporting Women's Autonomy in Prenatal Testing.The New England journal of medicine · 2017
    Article
  8. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lindsay ParhamSchool of Law, Department of Jurisprudence and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Marsha MichieSchool of Nursing, Institute for Health and Aging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Megan AllyseBiomedical Ethics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mayo Clinic · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Factors Influencing Access and Utilization of Genetic Prenatal Care Services Among Women from Underserved PopulationsK01HG009542 · NHGRI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI ALLYSE, MEGAN A. · 2018 to 2022
$809k
Mapping an ELSI-integrated translational pathway with cell-free fetal DNA testingR00HG006452 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MICHIE, MARSHA MABRY · 2014 to 2016
$747k
NHGRI NIH HHS K01 HG009542NHGRI NIH HHS R00 HG006452
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose of Review: In 2011, screening platforms became available in the US that detect and analyze fragments of cell-free placental DNA (cfDNA) in maternal blood serum. Marketed as noninvasive prenatal tests (NIPT), cfDNA screening is more accurate than previously available serum screening tests for certain aneuploidies. The combination of a noninvasive procedure, high specificity and sensitivity, and lower false positive rates for some aneuploidies (most notably Down's syndrome) has led to broad clinician and patient adoption. New ethical, legal, and social issues arise from the increased use and expanded implementation of cfDNA in pregnancy. Recent Findings: Recently, several professional associations have amended their guidelines on cfDNA, removing language recommending its use in only "high-risk" pregnancies in favor of making cfDNA screening an available option for women with "low-risk" pregnancies as well. At the same time, commercial cfDNA screening laboratories continue to expand the range of available test panels. As a result, the future of prenatal screening will likely include a broader range of genetic tests in a wider range of patients. Summary: This article addresses the ethical, legal, and social issues related to the shift in guidance and expanded use of cfDNA in pregnant women, including concerns regarding routinized testing, an unmet and increasing demand for genetic counseling services, social and economic disparities in access, impact on groups living with disabling conditions, and provider liability.

Indexed as

cfDNAEthicsLegal issuesNIPTPrenatal screeningSocial issues

Identifiers

PMID38089918
PMCPMC10715629
OpenAlexW2587117080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.