ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2025
Going Back in Time: Prenatal Presentations of Postnatal Genetic Diagnoses Made in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 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.
- The Importance of Clinical Acumen for Prenatal Diagnosis in an Increasingly Technological World.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
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
objectivesPrenatal genetic diagnosis can impact care across the perinatal continuum; however, prenatal suspicion for genetic disorders may be complicated by incomplete knowledge of fetal rare-disease phenotypes. Here, we describe the prenatal presentations of a cohort of infants with rare genetic conditions who were diagnosed postnatally in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), to characterize prenatal presenting features and evaluate why the diagnosis was not identified prenatally.
methodsRetrospective cohort study of infants born over a 7 year period (2017-2023) who were admitted to a Level IV NICU and received a postnatal genetic diagnosis prior to 1 year of age. We identified which of these infants had been imaged prenatally at our Maternal Fetal Care Center (MFCC) as an opportunity for prenatal genetic diagnosis. Clinical data were abstracted from the medical records.
results51 cases met the inclusion criteria. Nine of the 51 infants were not strongly suspected to have a genetic syndrome prenatally when seen at the MFCC, as evidenced by lack of prenatal genetic consultation and lack of documented suspicion for a genetic etiology. These cases largely had absent or uncertain prenatal phenotypes. In most cases (42/51, 82.4%), prenatal diagnostic testing was not pursued even if offered. Overall, postnatal diagnoses, of which there was one dual diagnosis, were made by karyotype/FISH (11/52, 21.1%), microarray (8/52, 15.4%), gene panel/targeted testing (17/52, 32.7%), or exome sequencing (16/52, 30.8%).
conclusionsOur data illustrate the challenges in fetal phenotyping and support a broad approach to prenatal testing to facilitate early genetic diagnosis, which may meaningfully impact postnatal care.
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.