ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Counseling prior to cfDNA screening: are we giving the right numbers?
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Residual risk of clinically significant copy number variations in fetuses with ultrasonographic soft markers following exclusion of non-invasive prenatal screening-detectable findings.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
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
objectiveIn this modeled study, we aim to evaluate the test performance of cfDNA screening for trisomy 21, 18, and 13 individually and in combination to help with pre-test counseling.
methodsWe used the German birth statistics 2023 and calculated the expected number of trisomy 21, 18, and 13 for each maternal age. The number of screen-positive tests (true and false) for trisomy 21, 18, and 13 was estimated based on maternal and gestational age-related risks for the three trisomies. The positive predictive value was calculated for each trisomy individually and in combination according to maternal age. In addition, we applied an uninformative test rate of 1.2%.
resultsIn 2023, 692,730 children were born in Germany and the predicted number of trisomy 21, 18, and 13 fetuses are 2,521.71, 1,084.70, and 344.31, respectively. In total, cfDNA screening in all pregnancies would result in 4,940.9 screen-positive pregnancies (screen-positive rate of 0.7%) and 13,253.69 uninformative tests. Up to 34 years of age, the screen-positive rate would be between 0.3 and 0.5%, but for older women, the screen-positive rate would be between 0.9 and 11.3%. The combined PPV for the three trisomies would be 48.7% in women of less than 20 years of age and increases to 98.8% in women who are 45 years old or older.
conclusioncfDNA screening is an excellent screening test for the most common trisomies. However, counseling prior to the screening test is essential. Our study provides useful numbers which can be used for this purpose.
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.