Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38753891›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2024

The implementation and impact of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down's syndrome into antenatal screening programmes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Elinor Sebire, Chithramali Hasanthika Rodrigo, Sohinee Bhattacharya, Mairead Black, Rachael Wood, Rute Vieira

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Function of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) Request Forms in the Australian Context.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Elinor SebireInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, The University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland.ORCID 0000-0003-3630-3989
Chithramali Hasanthika RodrigoInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, The University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Sohinee BhattacharyaInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, The University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Mairead BlackInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, The University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland.
Rachael WoodDepartment of Covid-19 Health Protection Response, Public Health Scotland, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Rute VieiraInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, The University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is a widely adopted maternal blood test that analyses foetal originating DNA to screen for foetal chromosomal conditions, including Down's syndrome (DS). The introduction of this test, which may have implications for important decisions made during pregnancy, requires continual monitoring and evaluation. This systematic review aims to assess the extent of NIPT introduction into national screening programmes for DS worldwide, its uptake, and impact on pregnancy outcomes. METHODS AND

findingsThe study protocol was published in PROSPERO (CRD42022306167). We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase for population-based studies, government guidelines, and Public Health documents from 2010 onwards. Results summarised the national policies for NIPT implementation into screening programmes geographically, along with population uptake. Meta-analyses estimated the pooled proportions of women choosing invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD) following a high chance biochemical screening result, before and after NIPT was introduced. Additionally, we meta-analysed outcomes (termination of pregnancy and live births) amongst high chance pregnancies identified by NIPT. Results demonstrated NIPT implementation in at least 27 countries. Uptake of second line NIPT varied, from 20.4% to 93.2% (n = 6). Following NIPT implementation, the proportion of women choosing IPD after high chance biochemical screening decreased from 75% (95% CI 53%, 88%, n = 5) to 43% (95%CI 31%, 56%, n = 5), an absolute risk reduction of 38%. A pooled estimate of 69% (95% CI 52%, 82%, n = 7) of high chance pregnancies after NIPT resulted in termination, whilst 8% (95% CI 3%, 21%, n = 7) had live births of babies with DS.

conclusionsNIPT has rapidly gained global acceptance, but population uptake is influenced by healthcare structures, historical screening practices, and cultural factors. Our findings indicate a reduction in IPD tests following NIPT implementation, but limited pre-NIPT data hinder comprehensive impact assessment. Transparent, comparable data reporting is vital for monitoring NIPT's potential consequences.

Indexed as

Down SyndromeNoninvasive Prenatal TestingPrenatal DiagnosisFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy Outcome

Identifiers

PMID38753891
PMCPMC11098470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.