ReviewPediatric research2025
Advancing fetal diagnosis and prognostication using comprehensive prenatal phenotyping and genetic testing.
Review in Pediatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fetal Hepatosplenomegaly: Stepwise Diagnostic Framework, Diagnostic Approach to Fetal Hepatosplenomegaly.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Prenatal genetic diagnostics and postnatal outcomes of fetal auricular dysplasia.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Advancing Prenatal Diagnosis: From Conventional Karyotyping to Genome-Wide CNV Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Global Health and Genomics.The Nursing clinics of North America · 2025Review
- Micrognathia as a Diagnosis Marker for the Prenatal Identification of Edwards Syndrome.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Application of chromosome microarray analysis and karyotyping in fetal cardiac abnormalities.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prenatal diagnoses of congenital malformations have increased significantly in recent years with use of high-resolution prenatal imaging. Despite more precise radiological diagnoses, discussions with expectant parents remain challenging because congenital malformations are associated with a wide spectrum of outcomes. Comprehensive prenatal genetic testing has become an essential tool that improves the accuracy of prognostication. Testing strategies include chromosomal microarray, exome sequencing, and genome sequencing. The diagnostic yield varies depending on the specific malformations, severity of the abnormalities, and multi-organ involvement. The utility of prenatal genetic diagnosis includes increased diagnostic clarity for clinicians and families, informed pregnancy decision-making, neonatal care planning, and reproductive planning. Turnaround time for results of comprehensive genetic testing remains a barrier, especially for parents that are decision-making, although this has improved over time. Uncertainty inherent to many genetic testing results is a challenge. Appropriate genetic counseling is essential for parents to understand the diagnosis and prognosis and to make informed decisions. Recent research has investigated the yield of exome or genome sequencing in structurally normal fetuses, both with non-invasive screening methods and invasive diagnostic testing; the prenatal diagnostic community must evaluate and analyze the significant ethical considerations associated with this practice prior to generalizing its use. IMPACT: Reviews available genetic testing options during the prenatal period in detail. Discusses the impact of prenatal genetic testing on care using case-based examples. Consolidates the current literature on the yield of genetic testing for prenatal diagnosis of congenital malformations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38937640What 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.