ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
The assessing of clinical relevance of chromosomal microarray analysis in the prenatal diagnosis of fetal growth restriction.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A simple nomogram tool for predicting fetal chromosomal abnormalities based on ultrasound soft markers: a research note.BMC research notes · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveChromosomal variations are known to play a role in the etiology of fetal growth restriction (FGR). Here, we intend to investigate the significance of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis (CMA) in the prenatal diagnosis of definite FGR.
method182 pregnant women with FGR participated in our study, undergoing CMA to identify chromosomal abnormalities. The cohort was categorized into isolated FGR, FGR with ultrasound soft marker abnormalities, and FGR associated with structural malformations.
resultsThe detection rates of PCNVs in FGR with structural anomalies are significantly higher than those in the isolated FGR group and the FGR group with abnormal ultrasound soft markers (19.0% vs. 2.1%, 19% vs. 1.5%; χ²=9.33, p = 0.005). Compared to FGR with a single system malformation, the diagnostic rate of chromosomal variations in FGR with multiple system malformations is markedly increased (60% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.028). Advanced maternal age, early-onset FGR, and severe FGR do not appear to influence the diagnostic rate of chromosomal variations (p > 0.05).
conclusionChromosomal variations pose a significant risk in FGR with structural abnormalities, associated with the number of organ systems involved. Notably, advanced maternal age, early-onset FGR, and severe FGR do not affect the diagnostic rate of chromosomal variations in FGR.
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.