Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39638574›Full record

ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2025

Going Back in Time: Prenatal Presentations of Postnatal Genetic Diagnoses Made in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

Michael Duyzend, Malika Sud, Alissa M D'Gama, Tabitha Poorvu, Judy Estroff, Monica H Wojcik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael DuyzendMaternal Fetal Care Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3941-6447
Malika SudMaternal Fetal Care Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9258-7029
Alissa M D'GamaMaternal Fetal Care Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2482-5328
Tabitha PoorvuMaternal Fetal Care Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0009-0008-1906-0878
Judy EstroffMaternal Fetal Care Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4578-2531
Monica H WojcikMaternal Fetal Care Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8162-5031

Funding

The Burden of Genetic Disorders in Infant MortalityK23HD102589 · NICHD · BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI WOJCIK, MONICA HSIUNG · 2020 to 2024
$840k
Comprehensive and non-invasive prenatal screening of coding variationF32HD112084 · NICHD · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI DUYZEND, MICHAEL H · 2023 to 2024
$167k
NICHD NIH HHS F32 HD112084NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD102589NIH HHS F32HD112084NIH HHS K23HD102589
6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic Diseases, InbornGenetic TestingIntensive Care Units, NeonatalPrenatal DiagnosisAdultCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePregnancyRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID39638574
PMCPMC12137676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.