ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Comparative analysis of the application with the combination of CMA and karyotype in routine and late amniocentesis.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Karyotyping with amniotic fluid in 6,572 pregnant women and pregnancy outcomes--A single-center retrospective study.PloS one · 2025Article
- A retrospective analysis of 38,652 amniotic fluid karyotype.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Complementary role of echocardiography, karyotyping, and chromosomal microarray in congenital cardiac anomalies.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Retrospective analysis of non-invasive prenatal testing: a population study involving 19,835 participants in the Shaoyang area.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis is a retrospective comparative study. We aimed to analyze the results of karyotype and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) of amniotic fluid across different gestational weeks and evaluate the clinical value in prenatal diagnosis, particularly in the late pregnancies.
methodsSamples from 580 pregnant women of 18-23 weeks of gestation (mid-gestation group) and 196 pregnant women of 24-32 weeks of gestation (late group) were performed both standard G-band karyotype analysis and CMA.
resultsAmong the 580 pregnant women in the routine group, the most common indications were positive Down's screening (213/580, 36.7%), followed by advanced maternal age (196/580, 33.8%); while fetal structural anomalies on ultrasonography were the top reason for amniocentesis in the late group (56/196, 28.6%). In the routine group, the total detection rate was 12.1% (70/580), of which 4.1% (24/580) were identified by karyotype analysis and 11.2% (65/580) by CMA. The total detection rate was 15.3% (30/196) in the late group, of which 5.1% (10/196) were detected by karyotype analysis, and 14.3% (28/196) by CMA.
conclusionKaryotype analysis and CMA are complementary in detecting chromosomal abnormalities. Amniotic cavity puncture in the karyotype analysis in 18-23 weeks of gestation and 24-32 weeks of gestation is safe and effective, more obvious effect on the latter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38955819What 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.