ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2024
Cell-free DNA test for fetal chromosomal abnormalities in multiple pregnancies.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 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.
- Vanishing Twin Syndrome After In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer: Mechanisms, Perinatal Consequences, Diagnostic Pitfalls, and Prevention.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Technological Advances in Molecular Diagnostic Methods for Hereditary Diseases in Preconception and Prenatal Settings.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Cell-free DNA test for fetal chromosomal abnormalities in multiple pregnancies.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to report the screening performance of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing for chromosomal abnormalities in twins, triplets, and vanishing twin pregnancies. MATERIAL AND
methodsData were obtained from pregnant women with a multiple pregnancy or a vanishing twin pregnancy at ≥10 weeks' gestation who requested self-financed cfDNA testing between May 2015 and December 2021. Those that had positive screening results had diagnostic confirmatory procedures after counseling and consent. The performance of screening of the cfDNA test was determined by calculating confirmation rate and combined false-positive rate (cFPR).
resultsData from 292 women were included after exclusion of those lost to follow-up, with no-result on cfDNA testing, or had reductions. Of the 292 pregnancies, 10 (3.4%) were triplets, including no cases of trisomy 21 and trisomy 18; 249 (85.3%) were twins, including 3 cases of trisomy 21 and no cases of trisomy 18 and 13; and 33 (11.3%) were vanishing twins, including 3 cases of trisomy 21 and 1 case of trisomy 18. The median (IQR) maternal age was 34 years (31-37). For triplet pregnancies, the initial no-result rate was 10.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6-26.4), all with results after redraw. For twin pregnancies, the initial no-result rate was 12.9% (95% CI 9.6-17.0), and the no-result rate after redraw was 1.6% (95% CI 0.7-3.6). For vanishing twins, there were no cases with no-result. All triplets had low-risk cfDNA results. The confirmation rate for trisomy 21 was 100% with a FPR at 0% due to the small number of positive cases for twins. For vanishing twins, one high-risk case for trisomy 21 and the only high-risk case for trisomy 18 were confirmed with a cFPR of 8.3% (n = 2/24; 95% CI 2.3-25.9).
conclusionscfDNA testing in twin pregnancies has sufficient screening performance for trisomy 21 but the number of affected cases for other conditions is limited to draw any meaningful conclusion. The use of cfDNA testing in triplet pregnancies and vanishing twins remains an area for further research.
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.