Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40462392›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2025

Comparison of conventional karyotype analysis and CMA results with ultrasound findings in pregnancies with normal QF-PCR results.

Zafer Bütün, Masum Kayapınar, Gökalp Şenol, Ece Akca, Ebru Erzurumluoğlu Gökalp, Sevilhan Artan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Zafer BütünPrivate Clinic, Perinatology, Eskişehir, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0001-5297-4462
Masum KayapınarPrivate Clinic, Perinatology, Mersin, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0001-6638-1940
Gökalp ŞenolHitit University Erol Olçok Education and Research Hospital, Clinic of Perinatology, Çorum, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-9497-3107
Ece AkcaEskişehir City Hospital, Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eskişehir, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0001-9993-3035
Ebru Erzurumluoğlu GökalpEskişehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Genetic, Eskişehir, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0002-1275-5174
Sevilhan ArtanEskişehir Osmangazi University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Genetic, Eskişehir, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0001-7658-6309

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: In cases requiring fetal diagnostic testing, conventional karyotype analysis is initially preferred. However, quantitative fluorescent-polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) or fluorescent in situ hybridization methods are used alongside conventional karyotype analysis to obtain rapid results. If results cannot be obtained from conventional karyotype analysis, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is a reasonable option in necessary cases. In this study, we analyzed the conventional karyotype and CMA results from pregnancies reported as having normal karyotypes by QF-PCR and assessed their correlation with ultrasound imaging results. Materials and Methods: Between 2020 and 2023, pregnant women with fetal structural anomalies detected by ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging at the Eskişehir City Hospital, Clinic of Perinatology were referred to our prenatal diagnosis center. In samples obtained using appropriate diagnostic methods, QR-PCR and conventional karyotype analysis were performed initially. Pregnancies with chromosomal anomalies detected by QF-PCR were excluded from the study. For pregnancies with normal karyotypes, CMA was applied. Results: In 203 pregnancies with a normal karyotype result from QF-PCR, 202 (99.5%) were reported as normal in conventional karyotype analysis, while 1 (0.5%) case showed deletion of chromosome 7. Among the remaining pregnancies, CMA examination revealed abnormal karyotype results in 25 (12.3%) cases. A relationship was found only between ventriculomegaly detected by ultrasound and CMA results. The prevalence of ventriculomegaly was higher in those with CMA abnormalities (16%) compared to those with normal CMA (4.5%), and this difference was statistically significant (p=0.045). Conclusion: The benefit of CMA analysis in detecting chromosomal anomalies such as copy number variations, especially in cases reported as having a normal karyotype by QF-PCR and karyotype analysis, is evident. To evaluate the relationship between ultrasound anomalies and CMA results, each community should assess its own results.

Indexed as

Chromosomal microarray analysisconventional karyotypingfetal anomaliesquantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction

Identifiers

PMID40462392
PMCPMC12136108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.