Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40627867›Full record

SynthesisUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2025

Performance of international phenotypic criteria for prenatal exome sequencing: systematic review and comparative diagnostic accuracy study using historical individual participant data.

K Reilly, D L Rolnik, S Allen, A Sotiriadis, S Ong, S Sonner, G V Blayney, M Fernando, T Van Mieghem, A Borrell and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Obtaining a Diagnostic Yield via Scan findings prior to the introduction of SEquencing retrospectivelY (ODYSSEY): a cohort study.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

13 authors.

K ReillyCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
D L RolnikDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2263-3592
S AllenWest Midlands Regional Genetics Laboratory, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
A SotiriadisSecond Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-0876-5596
S OngCentre for Fetal Medicine, Royal Jubilee Maternity Service, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK.
S SonnerCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
G V BlayneyCentre for Fetal Medicine, Royal Jubilee Maternity Service, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK.
M FernandoKing's College London Medical School, London, UK.
T Van MieghemDivision of Maternal and Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3034-6905
A BorrellBarcelona Centre for Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine (BCNatal), Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4304-4797
S LangloisDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
F MoneCentre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0718-7547
Collaborators

Funding

Department for the Economy
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate: (i) the performance of the National Health Service (NHS) phenotypic eligibility criteria for prenatal exome sequencing (pES); (ii) the diagnostic yield of individual NHS criteria; (iii) the diagnostic yield when one or multiple NHS criteria were met; and (iv) the performance of the NHS criteria compared with that of phenotypic eligibility criteria used in other countries/regions.

methodsAn online survey was circulated to healthcare professionals in 120 countries to gather information on whether pES is offered in their country and how case selection is performed. Five predefined sets of phenotypic eligibility criteria from England, Greece, Canada (British Columbia and Ontario) and Spain were tested on a virtual historical cohort of 1054 'unselected' structurally abnormal fetuses undergoing pES, derived from a published systematic review. The performance of the current and previous gene panels used in the NHS pES service was assessed in the unselected cohort. The sensitivity and specificity with 95% CI for each set of criteria in relation to diagnostic yield for pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants were calculated, along with the area under the summary receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC).

resultsThe electronic survey received 261 responses from 63/120 countries. Where deducible, 81.8% (45/55) of the countries surveyed offered pES. Where stated, most (90.3% (28/31)) cases were selected for pES on a case-by-case basis, according to fetal phenotype and the likelihood of an association with a monogenic condition, rather than on the basis of predetermined phenotypic criteria. The total diagnostic yield of the NHS criteria when applied to all relevant cases for pES was 27.8% (69/248), with pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity and AUC of 49.8% (95% CI, 31.7-67.9%), 80.7% (95% CI, 59.6-92.2%) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.74), respectively. The diagnostic yield was highest for isolated short long bones (58.3% (7/12)). The likelihood of a monogenic diagnosis did not increase significantly as the number of NHS criteria met increased. There was a significant increase in the diagnostic yield of the current (2024) vs original (2020) gene panel adopted by the NHS (129/135 (95.6%) vs 118/135 (87.4%); P = 0.017). The four other sets of phenotypic criteria used in other countries/regions performed moderately well, with the best performance seen for the British Columbia criteria, which had a pooled sensitivity of 70.5% (95% CI, 43.7-88.1%), pooled specificity of 68.9% (95% CI, 37.5-89.1%) and AUC of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.58-0.79).

conclusionsIn the majority of countries for which there was a survey response, pES was offered on a case-by-case basis, according to fetal phenotype and the likelihood of an underlying monogenic condition. Existing phenotypic eligibility criteria for pES performed modestly. © 2025 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Exome SequencingGenetic TestingPrenatal DiagnosisFemaleHumansPhenotypePregnancySensitivity and SpecificityState Medicinecriteriaexome sequencingfetal anomalynext‐generation sequencingphenotypeprenatal

Identifiers

PMID40627867
PMCPMC12401499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.