ArticleScientific reports2024
Chromosomal abnormalities detected by chromosomal microarray analysis and pregnancy outcomes of 4211 fetuses with high-risk prenatal indications.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Antihypertensive drug use for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in hospitals across nine Chinese cities: a real-world data study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Prenatal SNP-array chromosomal microarray analysis in 3,549 pregnancies: indication-specific yields and clinical implications.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Prenatal diagnosis strategies and pregnancy outcomes in the Luohe region of China in the context of increasing maternal age.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exome Sequencing Resolving a Complex Pediatric Neurodevelopmental Disorder After Inconclusive Prenatal Testing: A Case Report.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Application of Chromosomal Karyotype Analysis Combined With Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in the Amniotic Fluid of Advanced Maternal Age.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2025Article
- Clinical application of single nucleotide polymorphism array in prenatal diagnosis: Experience with 8753 samples.PloS one · 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
With the gradual liberalization of the three-child policy and the development of assisted reproductive technology in China, the number of women with high-risk pregnancies is gradually increasing. In this study, 4211 fetuses who underwent chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) with high-risk prenatal indications were analysed. The results showed that the overall prenatal detection rate of CMA was 11.4% (480/4211), with detection rates of 5.82% (245/4211) for abnormal chromosome numbers and 5.58% (235/4211) for copy number variants. Additionally, the detection rates of clinically significant copy number variants were 3.78% (159/4211) and 1.8% (76/4211) for variants of uncertain significance. The detection rates of fetal chromosomal abnormalities were 6.42% (30/467) for pregnant women with advanced maternal age (AMA), 6.01% (50/832) for high-risk maternal serum screening (MSS) results, 39.09% (224/573) with abnormal non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) results, 9.21% (127/1379) with abnormal ultrasound results, and 5.1% (49/960) for other indications. Follow-up results were available for 4211 patients, including 3677 (3677/4211, 87.32%) whose infants were normal after birth, 462 (462/4211, 10.97%) who terminated their pregnancy, 51 (51/4211, 1.21%) whose infants were abnormal after birth, and 21 (21/4211, 0.50%) who refused follow-up. The results of this study demonstrate significant variation in the diagnostic rate of chromosomal microarray analysis across different indications, providing valuable guidance for clinicians to assess the applicability of CMA technology in prenatal diagnosis.
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.