ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2025
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Quantitative Fluorescent Polymerase Chain Reaction as a Substitute or Complement to Conventional Karyotyping for Prenatal Diagnosis.
Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 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
Background: This study endeavors to assess the efficacy of quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) as an alternative adjunctive modality to conventional karyotyping for prenatal diagnostic purposes. Methods: In this cohort study, 464 pregnant women deemed at high risk for chromosomal aneuploidies within gestational age 12-24 weeks, spanning from January 2020 to May 2023 were enrolled. Analysis was done on 347 women who underwent both QF-PCR and karyotype. Results: Within this cohort, concordant QF-PCR and karyotype results were achieved in 332 (95.67%) samples with 21 women showing trisomy 21 and two trisomy 18 in the fetus with results being 100% concordant with karyotype and QF-PCR. Notably, there were no false-negative or false-positive QF-PCR results. However, eleven cases presented discordant results, revealing various genetic abnormalities, such as deletions, translocations, inversions, and mosaicism. The overall frequency of chromosomal abnormalities was 8.82% (41/464). The mean age of the pregnant women was 28.7 ± 5.54 years, with 10.7% (50/464) of women having aged > 35 years. The median gestation age for amniocentesis and CVS procedures was 16 weeks (IQR 15.6-20) and 13 weeks (IQR 12.7-13.5), respectively. Conclusion: The study concluded that although QF-PCR may serve as a stand-alone diagnostic tool in some cases with appropriate pretest counseling, simultaneous karyotyping, or chromosomal microarray should be considered in pregnancies with normal QF-PCR results and abnormal USG findings such as increased nuchal translucency or structural malformations or a family history of a chromosomal disorder. Despite being a rapid and highly sensitive test, QF-PCR does not fully substitute conventional karyotype analysis. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13224-024-02032-1.
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.