ArticleHeliyon2024
The detection efficacy of noninvasive prenatal genetic testing (NIPT) for sex chromosome abnormalities and copy number variation and its differentiation in pregnant women of different ages.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Clinical Implications and Limitations of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Detecting Fetal Copy Number Variations: A Multicenter Study in Shaanxi Province, China.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Observational
- False Positive or False Negative-An Interesting Case in Prenatal Diagnostic Laboratory.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026Article
- Case Report: Expanding the diagnostic spectrum of non-invasive prenatal testing to structural chromosomal abnormalities.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Noninvasive prenatal testing: an overview.Australian prescriber · 2025Review
- 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
- Performance of cell free DNA as a screening tool based on the results of first trimester screening.Molecular cytogenetics · 2024Article
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the efficacy of noninvasive prenatal genetic testing (NIPT) in detecting fetal sex chromosome abnormalities and copy number variation (CNV), compare the efficacy between NIPT and serological screening alone, and further analyze the fetal sex chromosome abnormalities and CNV differentiation in pregnant women of different ages, so as to provide a reference for the prevention and control of fetal birth defects. Methods: Clinical data from 22,692 pregnant women admitted to our hospital from January 2013 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. All participants underwent serological screening and NIPT screening to compare fetal chromosomal abnormalities between the two screening modalities. 145 women whose fetus were diagnosed as sex chromosome abnormalities and 36 women whose fetus were diagnosed as CNV abnormalities based on NIPT screening were selected for prenatal diagnosis by amniocentesis or karyotyping. Taking prenatal diagnosis as the standard, the four-grid table method was used to detect the positive predictive value of NIPT screening for fetal sex chromosomal abnormalities and CNV. According to the age, pregnant women were divided into 18-30 years old (n = 9844), 31-35 years old (n = 7612), >35 years old (n = 5236), and then the detection rates of sexual fetal chromosomal abnormalities, CNV and total chromosomal abnormalities were compared in pregnant women. Results: Among the 22,692 pregnant women in this study, the high-risk proportion of serologic screening with 4.38% was higher than that of NIPT screening with 1.93% (P < 0.05). Among the 145 women with fetal sex chromosome abnormalities screened by NIPT, 122 cases of fetal sex chromosome abnormalities were diagnosed prenatally, including 45, X/47, XXX/47, XYY/47, XXY. The positive predictive values of NIPT screening were 25.00%, 58.82%, 85.71%, and 85.71%, respectively, with an overall predictive value of 44.26%. The positive predictive value of fetal sex chromosome abnormalities in NIPT screening was higher than that of serological screening (P < 0.05). Among the 36 pregnant women with fetal CNV, NIPT screening showed that CNVs≤10 Mb and CNVs>10 Mb were 33.33% and 66.67%, respectively. There were 12 cases of prenatal diagnosis of fetal CNV, among which the NIPT-screened positive predictive values of fetal copy number deletion, duplicate, deletion and duplicate were 50.00%, 57.14% and 100.00%, respectively, with an overall predictive value of 58.33%. The positive predictive value of CNV in NIPT screening was higher than that of serological screening without statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). The results of NIPT screening showed that the detection rate of fetal sex chromosome abnormalities and total abnormalities of pregnant women over 35 years of age was significantly higher than that of pregnant women aged 18-30 and 31-35 years (P < 0.05). Conclusion: NIPT screening could greatly improve the detection efficacy of fetal sex chromosome abnormalities, CNV and other chromosome abnormalities, and decline the false positive rate. However, the positive predictive value of NIPT screening was relatively low, and further prenatal testing and genetic counseling are still required. In addition, NIPT screening for fetal sex chromosome abnormalities, and the detection rate of total abnormalities in pregnant women older than 35 years old were increased significantly, and pregnancy at an advanced age may be one of the risk factors for fetal chromosomal abnormalities.
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.