ReviewPrzeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review2024
Diagnostic and prognostic role of soft ultrasound markers in prenatal detection and assessment of foetal abnormalities.
Review in Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review, 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.
- Review
- Fetal Copy Number Variant Detection in Pregnancies with Ultrasound Soft Markers: A Maternal Age-Stratified Retrospective Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Application of chromosomal microarray analysis for prenatal diagnosis in 315 ultrasonically abnormal fetuses.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- A simple nomogram tool for predicting fetal chromosomal abnormalities based on ultrasound soft markers: a research note.BMC research notes · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various soft markers can be detected in the ultrasonography of foetuses, which can be related to chromosomal abnormalities and increases the risk of abnormalities, or they can be considered as normal variations that can disappear due to the pregnancy progress. There are different tools to detect chromosomal abnormalities like conventional karyotyping, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array, non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT), and non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS). Therefore, in the present study, we aim to assess the accuracy of ultrasonic soft markers in the diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities such as chromosomal structural abnormalities, aneuploidy, and triploidy, especially Trisomy 21 and Trisomy 18. A systemic literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. We gathered all articles published before August 2023. We selected English studies such as retrospective and cross-sectional ones that assessed the relationship between ultrasonic soft markers and foetal chromosomal abnormalities. A total of 10 articles with 18,580 cases were included in our systematic review article that assessed the foetal abnormalities and aneuploidies by using conventional karyotyping, SNP array, CMA, and NIPT (or NIPS). Trisomy 21, Trisomy 18, and chromosomal structural abnormalities were the most common abnormalities related to ultrasonic soft markers by karyotyping; however, Trisomy 13, 47, XXY, 45, X, and mosaic chromosomal abnormalities were other abnormalities detected. Results by CMA showed Trisomy 21 and Trisomy 18 as the most common abnormalities in the foetuses also with ultrasonic soft markers, and other abnormalities were pathogenic copy-number variations, Turner (XO), polyploidy, 22q11.2deletion, and Trisomy13, respectively. It was discovered that there is a greater possibility of having pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs) in the groups with multiple ultrasonic soft markers, while foetuses with ultrasonic soft markers have a decreased prevalence of CMA abnormality compared to those who had significant abnormalities or abnormal nuchal translucency. Trisomy 21 was the only abnormality found by NIPT in the groups with 1 and 2 soft markers, while groups with multiple soft markers were all normal. By using SNP array, it was identified that the rate of chromosomal abnormalities such as aneuploidy and triploidy, LOH, and CNVs was lower in the group with a single ultrasonic soft marker compared to the group with structural abnormalities in multiple systems. Trisomy 21, Trisomy 18, and chromosomal structural abnormalities were the most common chromosomal abnormalities that ultrasound soft markers could diagnose. Therefore, it is recommended to employ soft markers besides CMA, SNP array, and NIPS (or NIPT) for greater accuracy in detecting foetus abnormalities.
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.