ArticleInternational journal of women's health2024
Efficiency of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in Detecting Fetal Copy Number Variation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complementary Diagnostic Roles of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing, Chromosomal Microarray Analysis, and Karyotyping in 14,011 High-Risk Pregnancies: A Retrospective Cohort Study with Combined Analyses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Development and temporal validation of a multimodal post-test risk stratification model for pregnancies with abnormal prenatal findings.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Clinical Implications and Limitations of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Detecting Fetal Copy Number Variations: A Multicenter Study in Shaanxi Province, China.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Observational
- Decoding structural birth defects through genomic landscapes: Innovative frameworks for diagnosis (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2026Review
- In the era of copy number variation sequencing: changes in the target population for prenatal diagnosis and what is the optimal prenatal diagnostic strategy?Frontiers in medicine · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Screening of pathological copy number variations (CNVs) is important for early-diagnosis of hereditary disease. This study was designed to investigate the efficiency of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in detecting fetal CNVs. Methods: This retrospective analysis included fetuses with CNVs between January 2018 and December 2020. Karyotype analysis and CNV sequencing (CNV-seq) were performed. We then analyzed the positive predictive values of the subchromosomal microdeletions and microduplications. Results: Fifty-eight subjects with aberrant CNVs were screened after NIPT, among which 44 finally underwent amniocentesis. CNV-seq confirmed the presence of CNVs in 24 cases. This indicated that false positivity rate of NIPT was 45.5%. Among 24 cases with CNVs after CNV-seq, only 4 showed consistent findings with karyotype analysis, which showed that karyotyping analysis yielded a missed diagnosis rate of 83.3% for the genome CNV. Positive predictive value (PPV) was 50.0% for CNVs with a length of <5 Mb after NIPT screening. PPV for CNVs with a length of 5 Mb-10 Mb was 33.3%, while that for CNVs with a length of ≥10Mb was 60%. For CNVs duplication after NIPT, the PPV was 65.2%, while that for deletion was 36.4%. Conclusion: For CNVs detected after NIPT, it should be combined with ultrasonographic findings, karyotype analysis, CNV-seq or CMA to determine the pregnancy outcome. Expanding NIPT may increase the risk of unnecessary invasive surgery and unintended selective termination of pregnancy.
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.