ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Evaluation of the clinical utility of NIPT-plus and analysis of adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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.
- Prenatal SNP-array chromosomal microarray analysis in 3,549 pregnancies: indication-specific yields and clinical implications.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
- Prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with ultrasound soft markers.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Retrospective analysis of non-invasive prenatal testing: a population study involving 19,835 participants in the Shaoyang area.Frontiers in genetics · 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
purposeTo evaluate the performance of NIPT-plus in detecting fetal aneuploidies and CNVs and analyze the factors influencing adverse pregnancy outcomes.
methodsThe retrospectively analyzed 8726 pregnant women who underwent NIPT-plus for fetal screening were classified into low- (who tested voluntarily) and high-risk (women with advanced age, abnormal ultrasound, abnormal serological screening, or a combination of indications) groups. Basic maternal information, prenatal findings, and pregnancy outcomes were recorded. NIPT-plus performance was assessed for various chromosomal abnormalities and the association between the fetal fraction and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
resultsThirty-six (0.4%) patients had failed tests; 144 (1.65%) positive cases were detected, of which, 107 (74.31%) opted for invasive testing, and 51 were verified as true positives. The total positive predictive value was 45.45% and 48.65% in the low- and high-risk groups, respectively, and the difference was not significant. Among the subsequent cases with abnormal ultrasound monitoring, two false-negative cases were identified, and pathogenic CNV diagnosis was confirmed through amniocentesis, resulting in pregnancy termination. Fetal fraction was not associated with an increased adverse pregnancy outcome risk; however, ethnic differences may affect pregnancy outcomes.
conclusionNIPT-plus technology use is no longer restricted to high-risk pregnant women, and it may produce false-positive results. The stakeholders should be aware of this limitation. The uncertainties and potential risks of the test results should be explained to the test takers to enable informed decision making and to minimize unnecessary anxiety and concerns. Ethnicity may influence adverse pregnancy outcomes in local multiracial settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39505749What 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.