ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2025
Clinical Laboratory Experience With Prenatal cfDNA Screening in Triplet Pregnancies.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePrenatal cfDNA screening is the most sensitive and specific screen for common aneuploidies in singleton and twin pregnancies and has been endorsed by several professional societies as a first-tier screen or contingent screen. However, data for triplet pregnancies is lacking, as these pregnancies are relatively uncommon and obtaining sufficient data for a robust analysis of test performance is challenging.
methodThis study presents a retrospective review of over 1500 samples from triplet pregnancies screened via cfDNA for common aneuploidies.
resultsMean patient age was 34 years, while mean gestational age was 13 weeks. The most common indication for testing was patient age, representing > 60% of the cohort. There were 13 screen-positive cases (1.01%), 270 NR cases (17.32%), and the remainder were screen-negative. Complete or partial genetic and/or obstetric outcome information (including birth and neonatal outcomes) was available for 147 samples, including all 13 positive cfDNA samples. No false positive or false negative cases were identified.
conclusionThe data from this study support the notion that cfDNA screening in triplet pregnancies is a reasonable approach given the lack of alternative screening options for these patients and that the performance likely approaches that of twin pregnancies, albeit with a higher no-call rate.
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.