ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2025
Comparison of conventional karyotype analysis and CMA results with ultrasound findings in pregnancies with normal QF-PCR results.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The incremental yield of CMA over karyotype in fetal ventriculomegaly: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Pooled it
- The Diagnostic Utility of Prenatal Microarray in High-Risk Pregnancies: A Single-Center Experience in Enhancing Reproductive Care and Risk Stratification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.