ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2025
Blazing the Trail of Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening Expanded Use: Healthcare Providers' Perspectives.
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.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAdvancements in non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) could significantly alter prenatal screening by expanding the range of genetic conditions screened. This study aims to explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCP) on the expanded use of NIPS and explore specifications for the inclusion of genetic conditions.
methodSemi-structured interviews were conducted with Canadian HCPs who counsel pregnant individuals about NIPS. The findings were organized around the four ethical pillars of Kater-Kuiper's framework: proportionality (benefits and harms), aim of screening, justice, and societal aspects.
resultsParticipants chose to assess the proportionality of NIPS using general terms to describe the additional conditions rather than discussing specific conditions to add. They emphasized the importance of clinical validity as crucial for expanding NIPS and ensuring its utility. Participants believed that the aim of NIPS is to enhance reproductive autonomy, and therefore that screening for late-onset conditions could create ethical tensions between parents and the prospective children. Participants also worried that expanded use of NIPS could impact the quality of counselling provided by HCPs and affect autonomy. Justice considerations include the allocation of resources in prenatal care instead of other areas of healthcare. Societal aspects highlighted the different definitions HCPs used to describe 'life-limiting conditions' that could severely affect the future child's health.
conclusionWith expanded use of NIPS, clinical validity will vary for each screened condition. Specificity for each condition will influence the quality of consent. HCP estimates that clinical validity, clinical utility, availability of counselling, availability of resources, and societal impacts should be considered when adding genetic conditions to NIPS.
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.