ArticleReproductive medicine and biology
Comparative prospective study on the clinical utility of G-banding and next-generation sequencing for chromosomal analysis of products of conception under Advanced Medical Care A in Japan.
Article in Reproductive medicine and biology. 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.
- Novel Insights into Normal Karyotype Miscarriage: Distinctive Patterns and Implications for Diagnosis Based on Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
- Comparative prospective study on the clinical utility of G-banding and next-generation sequencing for chromosomal analysis of products of conception under Advanced Medical Care A in Japan.Reproductive medicine and biologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the clinical utility of G-banding and next-generation sequencing (NGS) for chromosomal analysis of products of conception (POC), a crucial tool for detecting fetal chromosomal abnormalities which are major causes of miscarriage and stillbirth. Methods: We evaluated the clinical utility of both techniques in a prospective analysis of 40 patients who experienced miscarriages or stillbirths between 6 and 36 weeks of gestation under Advanced Medical Care A in Japan. Both methods were applied to the same POC samples. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a presumed cause of miscarriage or stillbirth among all submitted samples. Results: NGS presumed the cause in 75.0% (30/40) of cases, significantly outperforming G-banding's 42.5% (17/40) ( Conclusions: These results highlight the superior efficacy of NGS over G-banding for presuming causes of miscarriage or stillbirth.
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.