Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39152297›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025

Should the scope of NIPT be limited by a 'threshold of seriousness'?

Michelle Taylor-Sands, Molly Johnston, Catherine Mills

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Editorial: severity in a genomic age.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michelle Taylor-SandsMelbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. m.taylor-sands@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-3161-3320
Molly JohnstonMonash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3786-0843
Catherine MillsMonash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has the potential to screen for a wider range of genetic conditions than is currently possible at an early stage of pregnancy and with minimal risks. As such, there have been calls to apply a 'threshold of seriousness' to limit the scope of conditions being tested. This approach is based on concerns about society at large and the potential impact on specific groups within it. In this paper, we argue that limiting the scope of NIPT using the criterion of 'seriousness' is arbitrary, potentially stigmatises certain disabilities over others and fails to respect reproductive autonomy. We contend that concerns about expanded NIPT are more appropriately addressed by the provision of adequate information, counselling and consent procedures. We recommend a decision-making process that helps healthcare providers support prospective parents to make informed decisions about the nature and scope of NIPT screening based on their own values and social context. In addition to addressing concerns about expanded NIPT screening, this process would help clinicians to obtain legally valid consent and discharge their duty of care (including the duty to inform) in the prenatal context.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingNoninvasive Prenatal TestingPrenatal DiagnosisDecision MakingFemaleGenetic CounselingHumansInformed ConsentPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID39152297
PMCPMC11839980

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.