ArticleScientific reports2024
Limited ability of increased sequencing depth in detecting cases missed by noninvasive prenatal testing: a comparative analysis of 3 clinical cases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Increased sequencing depth can improve the detection rate of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for chromosome aneuploidies and copy number variations (CNVs). However, due to the technical limitations of NIPT, false-positives and false-negatives are inevitable. False-positives for aneuploidy and CNVs have been widely reported, but few missed cases have been reported. In this study, we report 3 patients missed by NIPT, which were still missed after increasing the sequencing depth. To verify the detection efficiency of the platform, the results of NIPT in 32,796 patients treated in Yulin Women and Children Health Care Hospital from 2020 to 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Data on false-negative cases found by postnatal follow-up or amniocentesis were collected, and the sequencing data, pregnancy examination data, and postnatal follow-up results of these missed patients were summarized. Five patients missed by NIPT were found, and they were missed again by retesting or increasing the sequencing depth. Except for hypospadias found in 1 patient, ultrasonography of the other 4 patients showed no obvious abnormalities during the whole pregnancy. Our results suggest that pregnant women should be fully informed of the benefits and limitations of NIPT before undergoing the examination to avoid unnecessary medical disputes.
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.