ReviewArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Second trimester soft markers: still worth to be mentioned?
Review 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Incremental Yield of CMA Over Karyotype in Fetal Growth Restriction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of Prenatal Screening Markers for Down Syndrome in the Turkistan Region.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Improved positive predictive value of non-invasive prenatal testing through integration with second-trimester ultrasound soft markers for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the widespread use of cell-free DNA in screening for trisomy 21, soft markers continue to be assessed in the second trimester, leading to confusion about how they affect the risk of trisomy 21, especially after an earlier screening test such as cell-free DNA screening. In this review, we provide an overview of commonly used second trimester soft markers, explain how they can be used to calculate the risk for trisomy 21, and discuss what other chromosomal or structural abnormalities might be associated with these markers. We especially focus on pathogenic copy number variants as these, in aggregate, are common and are very difficult to detect using cfDNA or even standard karyotyping.
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.