ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Clinical factors that influence chorionic villus sampling sample size.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chorionic Villi Sampling among Early and Late Gestational Age: Does Timing Affect Yield and Outcomes?AJP reports · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur primary objective was to characterize clinical and procedural factors affecting sample size in chorionic villus sampling (CVS).
methodsThis retrospective, single-site cohort study included singleton pregnancies undergoing transabdominal (TA) and transcervical (TC) CVS between 2020 and 2023. Prenatal and maternal data were obtained from the electronic medical record. Differences by approach and sample size in relation to demographic and pregnancy characteristics were assessed. Linear regression was used to identify factors associated with yield.
resultsData from 240 CVS procedures were included (n = 91 TC CVS and n = 149 TA CVS). Sample size was significantly larger in TC compared to TA approach (37.1 mg vs 32.4 mg, p = 0.04). In unadjusted models, BMI was associated with a lower sample yield (p = 0.01); use of a TC approach was associated with higher sample size yield (p < 0.01); and lateral placenta was associated with significantly larger samples (p = 0.02). After adjusting for approach and placental location, higher BMI remained associated with smaller sample size (parameter estimate: - 0.47 mg (95% CI: - 0.86, - 0.08); p = 0.03).
conclusionCVS remains an important prenatal diagnostic tool in early gestation. We find that higher BMI is associated with a smaller sample yield despite differences in approach and placental location.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39821677What 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.