ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025
Is intermediate risk really intermediate? Comparison of karyotype and non-invasive prenatal testing results of pregnancies at intermediate risk of trisomy 21 on maternal serum screening.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the additional contribution of karyotyping compared with genome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for pregnancies at intermediate risk for trisomy 21 (T21), calculated using the maternal serum screening without major structural anomalies detected through sonography. Karyotype results of all pregnancies undergoing invasive prenatal diagnostic testing between January 2013 and March 2022 were obtained from a large hospital-based laboratory. Pregnancies with no major structural anomalies on ultrasound (including soft markers) and an intermediate risk for T21 on maternal serum screening were included in this study. The additional contribution of karyotyping for abnormal karyotype results was calculated after excluding results that could theoretically be identified with genome-wide NIPT. Among the 511 pregnancies analyzed, 13 (2.54%) were found to have abnormal karyotype results, 9 (1.76%) of which could theoretically have been detected with genome-wide NIPT. Within the cohort, 6/263 (2.28%) of women aged 35 years and older, and 3/248 (1.20%) of women younger than 35 years had results that could have been detected with genome-wide NIPT. After excluding results detectable using genome-wide NIPT, the additional contribution of karyotyping was found as 4/502 (0.79%) for the entire cohort, 2/257 (0.77%) for women aged 35 years and older, 2/245 (0.81%) for women younger than 35 years. Of the 511 examined pregnancies at intermediate risk for T21 by maternal serum screening, genome-wide NIPT would have failed to detect 4 of 13 abnormal karyotype results. The findings hold importance in guiding couples' informed decision-making processes regarding their choice of genetic screening and diagnostic testing in case of intermediate risk for T21.
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.