ReviewMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2024
Clinically significant findings in a decade-long retrospective study of prenatal chromosomal microarray testing.
Review in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Karyotype Analysis for Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetuses With Abnormal Ultrasound Soft Markers.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2025Article
- Clinically significant findings in a decade-long retrospective study of prenatal chromosomal microarray testing.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChromosomal microarray (CMA) is commonly utilized in the obstetrics setting. CMA is recommended when one or more fetal structural abnormalities is identified. CMA is also commonly used to determine genetic etiologies for miscarriages, fetal demise, and confirming positive prenatal cell-free DNA screening results.
methodsIn this study, we retrospectively examined 523 prenatal and 319 products-of-conception (POC) CMA cases tested at Nationwide Children's Hospital from 2011 to 2020. We reviewed the referral indications, the diagnostic yield, and the reported copy number variants (CNV) findings.
resultsIn our cohort, the diagnostic yield of clinically significant CNV findings for prenatal testing was 7.8% (n = 41/523) compared to POC testing (16.3%, n = 52/319). Abnormal ultrasound findings were the most common indication present in 81% of prenatal samples. Intrauterine fetal demise was the common indication identified in POC samples. The most common pathogenic finding observed in all samples was isolated trisomy 21, detected in seven samples.
conclusionOur CMA study supports the clinical utility of prenatal CMA for clinical management and identifying genetic etiology in POC arrays. In addition, it provides insight to the spectrum of prenatal and POC CMA results as detected in an academic hospital clinical laboratory setting that serves as a reference laboratory.
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.