ArticleGlobal medical genetics2025
Karyogram in neonatology: Necessity or past?
Article in Global medical genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This research was conducted at the Clinic for Children's Diseases of the University Clinical Hospital (SKB) Mostar. The aim of this study is to assess the frequency and reasons for performing karyotyping in neonatology practice over the past 15 years in the Herzegovina region. Material and methods: A retrospective epidemiological study was conducted covering a 15-year period from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2023. The study included 150 newborns who underwent karyotype testing at the Intensive Care and Neonatology Department of the Clinic for Children's Diseases at University Clinical Hospital (SKB) Mostar. Results: Over the 15-year period, 48% (73/150) of the karyotypes were classified as normal, while 51% (77/150) were identified as pathological. The most common chromosomal abnormality was trisomy 21, which accounted for 70.13% (54/77) of the pathological cases. The results indicated that a majority of the fathers were older than 35 years (62.33%, or 48/77), whereas the age of the mothers was not statistically significant in this study. Additionally, 57% of multiparous women gave birth to children with chromosomal abnormalities. Premature newborns were more likely to have positive karyotype results. Conclusion: This research found no significant difference in the occurrence rates of pathological versus physiological karyotypes. Just over 50% of the children had confirmed karyotype deviations from normal variations. However, this suggests that healthcare resources may be misallocated in performing karyotyping, as the significance of the results may not always justify the testing.
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.