ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2025
How Useful is Nuchal Translucency in Detecting Chromosomal Abnormalities Missed by Genome-Wide NIPT and What Measurement Threshold Should Be Used?
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association Between Fetal Nuchal Translucency Measurements and Pregnancy Outcomes.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Strategies to Detect Chromosomal Anomalies Not Identified by NIPT.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Copy number variants in fetuses with isolated and non-isolated increased nuchal translucency detected by chromosomal microarray analysis.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGenome-wide non-invasive prenatal testing (gwNIPT) has screening limitations for detectable genetic conditions and cannot detect microdeletions/microduplications (MD) or triploidy. Nuchal translucency (NT) increases with gestation and with genetic or structural abnormalities. This study aims to determine the utility of NT measurement in detecting genetic abnormalities not identified by gwNIPT and the optimal NT threshold value.
methodsA 4-year retrospective study of singleton pregnancies undergoing first-line gwNIPT aneuploidy screening where invasive prenatal testing by CVS/or amniocentesis was subsequently undertaken. Population proportions for static and multiple of the median (MoM) NT cut-offs were derived from all 11-14 weeks ultrasound examinations.
resultsAmong 919 pregnancies with gwNIPT and invasive testing, 338 had a single genetic abnormality. There were 9 false negative GwNIPT results and a further 26 undetectable abnormalities (18 MD, 8 triploidy) in this cohort. Twelve had a dual chromosomal abnormality, four of which returned a low-risk gwNIPT. Thirty-three "missed cases" also had a 13-week scan, to which the various NT threshold values (3.0 mm, 1.6 MoM, 3.5 mm, and 1.9 MoM) were applied. In only 3 (9%) cases did the NT exceed 3.0 mm with similar detection rates (DR) for all higher cut-offs. Static and MoM-based NT cut-offs had similar positive predictive values (PPV).
conclusionEnlarged NT measurement is a poor predictor of genetic abnormalities not identified by gwNIPT. When applied, the fixed NT cut-off of 3.5 mm provides a low FPR with a similar DR to lower cut-off thresholds, resulting in a higher PPV.
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.