SynthesisPrenatal diagnosis2025
Genome-Wide Cell-Free DNA Analysis for Aneuploidy Detection in Miscarriages: Test Performance Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published series examining the efficacy of genome-wide cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing in identifying aneuploidy in pregnancies ending in miscarriage.
methodsA systematic review was conducted encompassing observational studies evaluating aneuploidy detection by genome-wide cfDNA testing in pregnancy losses before 22 weeks of gestation. A hierarchical summary receiver operating curve was employed to assess pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of genome-wide cfDNA versus genetic diagnostic studies in the detection of aneuploidy. Pooled aneuploidy rate, rate of no-calls, and concordance between cfDNA and diagnostic studies were analyzed using a single proportion meta-analysis based on the inverse of the variance.
resultsOut of 25 eligible series, eight studies were included for analysis, comprising 552 miscarriages with informative results for both cfDNA and diagnostic testing. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 78% (95% CI: 71%-83%), 91% (95% CI: 86%-95%), and 92%, respectively. Pooled aneuploidy rate, the proportion of no-calls, and concordance were 61% (95% CI: 53%-69%), 4% (95% CI: 0%-12%), and 84% (95% CI: 81%-87%), respectively. In cases of positive cfDNA results, the risk of aneuploidy increased to 93%, whereas negative results yielded a 28% risk of aneuploidy.
conclusioncfDNA testing demonstrates acceptable accuracy in predicting fetal aneuploidy when employed as a screening test in miscarriages. The main advantage of cfDNA testing is that it does not require the availability of products of conception or prior chorionic villi sampling.
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.