ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2025
Making Sense of a Prenatal Detection of Trisomy 16 Mosaicism in the Placenta: A Qualitative Study of Pregnant Women's Decision Making.
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 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.
- A Qualitative Study of Parental Decision-Making Following a Prenatal Diagnosis of Turner Syndrome: "How Serious Is This?"Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- A qualitative study of parents' experiences with receiving a prenatal diagnosis of confined placental mosaicism - "We had nothing to rely on, you know?"Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectivePrenatal detection of Trisomy 16 mosaicism (MosT16) in a Chorionic Villus Sample (CVS) results may cause significant anxiety for expectant parents due to the risk of fetal malformation and fetal growth restriction (FGR). The aim of this study was to investigate the experiences and decision-making of women receiving a MosT16 results during pregnancy.
methodsIn-depth, semi-structured interviews with eight Danish women who received a MosT16 CVS results. Interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsFour women terminated pregnancy following the MosT16 CVS result, emphasizing the emotional burden of waiting for amniocentesis and concerns about fetal involvement and FGR risk. Four women opted to await amniocentesis following which one terminated pregnancy due to fetal involvement, while three continued their pregnancies (one normal result, two low-percentage fetal involvement results). During pregnancy, all three fetuses were small for gestational age, and the concerns about their growth were burdensome for expectant parents. Two women delivered prematurely, but all three described their babies as healthy.
conclusionThe prenatal MosT16 CVS result represents a critical decision point, requiring consideration of both fetal involvement and FGR risk. Thus, genetic counseling should be combined with counseling from obstetrics/fetal medicine specialists.
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.