ReviewJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2025
Evaluating Chromosomal Mosaicism in Prenatal Diagnosis: The Complementary Roles of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis and Karyotyping.
Review in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 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.
- Optimizing the diagnostic approach for sex chromosome and autosomal mosaicism in amniotic fluid: integrating karyotyping with CNV-seq.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- A retrospective analysis of 38,652 amniotic fluid karyotype.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the impact of in vitro cell subculture on prenatal diagnostic sample results and compare the efficacy of conventional karyotyping and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in detecting chromosome mosaicism.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of G-banding karyotyping and CMA data from 2007 amniocentesis cases to investigate chromosome mosaicism.
resultsChromosome mosaicism was detected in 1.49% of cases (30/2007). Sex chromosome mosaicism was the most common form of mosaicism. Among the 30 mosaicisms, 18 results were consistent between the two methods. In four cases, CMA indicated mosaicism but the karyotypes were normal. In eight cases, CMA was normal while the karyotypes suggested mosaicism.
conclusionsCMA and karyotyping complement each other in prenatal genetic diagnosis. Combining both methods enhances detection accuracy, particularly in cases of chromosomal mosaicism, which may be missed after the subculture of adherent cells in karyotype analysis.
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.