ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2024
Comparison of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Pregnant Women with Fetal Ultrasonic Soft Markers.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Residual risk of clinically significant copy number variations in fetuses with ultrasonographic soft markers following exclusion of non-invasive prenatal screening-detectable findings.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Karyotype Analysis for Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetuses With Abnormal Ultrasound Soft Markers.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess the utility of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in detecting clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities among fetuses presenting ultrasonic soft markers (USMs). Methods: A retrospective observational study, spanning from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2022, enrolled 539 singleton pregnant women with fetal USMs at our center. Of these, 418 cases (77.6%) underwent NIPT, while 121 cases (22.4%) opted for invasive prenatal diagnosis post-appropriate genetic counseling. Cases with high-risk NIPT results proceeded to invasive prenatal diagnosis, where conventional karyotyping and CMA were concurrently performed. Further stratification was done based on the number of USMs, classifying cases into single-USM and multiple-USM groups. Results: Of the 24 cases (4.5%) exhibiting abnormal findings, 17 presented numerical chromosomal abnormalities, 2 featured clinically significant copy number variations (CNVs), 3 showed variants of unknown significance (VOUS), 1 displayed LOH, and 1 exhibited chromosome nine inversion. Notably, 18 cases (75%) theoretically detectable by karyotyping (eg, sizes above 10Mb) and 16 cases (66.7%) detectable by NIPT for five common aneuploidies were identified. Six submicroscopic findings (25%) were exclusively detectable by CMA. The predominant clinically relevant aberrations were observed in the thickened nuchal-translucency (TNT) group (9/35, 25.7%), followed by the multiple soft markers group (3/32, 9.3%). In the NIPT group, the false positive rate was 1.22%, and the false negative rate was 0%. Conclusion: The prevalence of chromosome aneuploidy exceeded that of submicroscopic chromosomal imbalance in pregnant women with fetal USMs. NIPT demonstrated efficacy, particularly for soft markers like echogenic intracardiac focus. However, for those with TNT and multiple soft markers, invasive prenatal diagnosis, including CMA testing, is recommended as the primary investigative approach.
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.