ArticleMedicine2025
Consecutive 5-year outcomes of chorionic villus sampling at a tertiary center.
Article in Medicine, 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.
- Article
- Chorionic Villus Sampling in the Era of Genomic Medicine: A Gateway to Early and Personalized Prenatal Diagnosis.The application of clinical genetics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study shares our 5-year experience with chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and analyzes the indications, results, and complications of this procedure. We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from singleton pregnancies that underwent CVS between 2015 and 2020 at the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Unit of Health Science University, Izmir Tepecik Research, and Training Hospital. Maternal demographics, indications, karyotype results, and pregnancy outcomes were recorded. We retrospectively analyzed data from 468 CVS procedures, conducted between 2015 and 2020. The most common indications for CVS were positive screening test results in the first trimester, fetal structural abnormalities, and increased nuchal translucency (NT) observed during ultrasound. Fetal structural abnormalities had the highest detection rate, at 34.5% for chromosomal abnormalities, followed by increased NT and first-trimester screen-positive test results (26.9% and 11.3%), respectively. The culture success rate was 96.3% (451 out of 468). The most prevalent chromosomal abnormalities were numerical, including Trisomy 21 (10.9%), Trisomy 18 (4.2%), and Trisomy 13 (1.9%). Results could not be obtained in 17 patients (3.6%); 12 (2.5%) were due to insufficient samples and culture failure, while 5 (1.06%) were due to maternal contamination. Amniocentesis was required as a secondary sampling in 24 cases (5.1%) and performed in 17 cases (3.6%). This study emphasizes the significance of CVS in prenatal diagnosis and the management of high-risk pregnancies. However, we must be aware of the associated risks and limitations, which include culture success rates, inconclusive results, and the occasional need for secondary sampling.
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.