ReviewArchive of clinical cases2025
The evolution of prenatal Whole Exome Sequencing: from cytogenetics to precision medicine.
Review in Archive of clinical cases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Twenty-Two Years of Prenatal Testing for Suspected Monogenic Disorders: A Retrospective Single-Center Experience in Western Romania.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic evaluation and clinical utility of C-MoKa for prenatal genetic testing.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Expanding prenatal diagnosis: clinical utility of prenatal whole-exome sequencing in a Romanian case series with fetal anomalies.Journal of medicine and life · 2026Article
- Progress, clinical application and challenges of non-invasive prenatal testing for monogenic diseases.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prenatal genetic diagnostics have undergone a remarkable transformation, progressing from early cytogenetic techniques such as karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and, most recently, whole exome sequencing (WES). WES has emerged as a groundbreaking tool, allowing for identifying single-gene mutations, small insertions and deletions, and other pathogenic variants responsible for rare and complex diseases. Unlike conventional approaches, which primarily detect large chromosomal abnormalities, WES provides a high-resolution analysis of the fetal genome, significantly improving diagnostic accuracy and enabling early intervention. This review explores the historical evolution of prenatal genetic testing, highlighting key milestones from the introduction of cytogenetics in the 1960s to the integration of WES in clinical practice over the last decade. WES has proven instrumental in diagnosing monogenic disorders, uncovering the genetic basis of fetal anomalies, and investigating cases of stillbirth and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). However, despite its immense clinical utility, challenges such as the interpretation of variants of uncertain significance (VUS), ethical concerns surrounding incidental findings, and the financial burden associated with sequencing continue to impact its widespread adoption. Future directions in WES include its potential integration with non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), advancements in artificial intelligence (AI)-driven bioinformatics, and its role in precision medicine, offering more personalized and data-driven approaches to prenatal care. As technological innovations continue to enhance the speed, accuracy, and affordability of WES, its role as a cornerstone of modern prenatal diagnostics is expected to expand, shaping the future of fetal genetic screening and clinical decision-making.
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.