Observational studyGenes2024
A Decade of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) for Chromosomal Abnormalities in Croatia: First National Monocentric Study to Inform Country's Future Prenatal Care Strategy.
Observational study in Genes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of cell-free DNA-based non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidies: a systematic review.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Pooled it
- Technological Advances in Molecular Diagnostic Methods for Hereditary Diseases in Preconception and Prenatal Settings.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Transcervical, Transabdominal and Transvaginal Chorionic Villus Sampling for Prenatal Diagnosis in Zagreb, Croatia: A Prospective Single-Operator Study on 5500 Cases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): A Paradigm Shift in Prenatal Care.International journal of preventive medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChromosomal numerical and structural alterations are significant causes of various developmental disorders in foetuses. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has emerged as an effective screening tool for detecting common aneuploidies, aiding in the identification of individuals who may require further diagnostic work-up.
methodsThis retrospective, monocentric observational study evaluates the usage patterns, test choices, turnaround times (TAT), and outcomes of NIPT between 2013 and 2023 on a sample of 2431 pregnant women at a special hospital offering outpatient services and comprehensive gynaecological/obstetric inpatient care. We analysed the trends in NIPT usage, high-risk results, prior screening procedures, as well as factors such as age, gestational age and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) status. NIPT was performed using cell-free foetal DNA (cffDNA) extracted from maternal plasma, followed by library construction, sequencing and result analysis. The sequencing results were aligned with reference genomes, and z-scores were calculated to assess the likelihood of aneuploidy. Statistical significance was set at
resultsThe average age of women undergoing NIPT decreased from 36.1 years in 2013 to 33.01 years in 2023 (
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate the increasing efficiency and accessibility of NIPT in prenatal care in Croatia, while the significant reduction in TAT and the decreasing age of women undergoing NIPT reflect enhanced operational practices and broader acceptance. Introducing NIPT into the public healthcare system in the Republic of Croatia could improve equitable access to advanced prenatal care and enhance pregnancy outcomes. Future advancements in technology and genetic counselling will further enhance its role, requiring careful attention to ethical and regulatory considerations.
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.