ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of the prenatal diagnostic value of non-invasive prenatal testing for the detection of rare fetal autosomal trisomies: a single center study of 83,842 cases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary Comparison of a Modified cfDNA Extraction Protocol for Y-Chromosome Marker Detection in Maternal Plasma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Clinical Application of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing in Singleton Pregnancy with and without in vitro Fertilization: A 6-year Observational Study at a Single Tertiary Center.International journal of women's health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To investigate the prenatal diagnostic value and pregnancy outcomes of rare autosomal trisomies (RATs) as indicated by non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), and to contribute to good childbearing. This was a retrospective and cross-sectional analysis of 83,842 pregnant women who received NIPT in our hospital. Amniotic fluid karyotype analysis and SNP-array chip detection were used to evaluate the prenatal diagnostic value and pregnancy outcomes of pregnant women at high-risk of RATs. In 83,842 pregnant women, 331 were identified to be at high-risk of RATs; the positive screening rate was 0.39% (331/83,842). Among the 331 women at high risk of RATs, 245 received invasive prenatal diagnosis, and the referral reasons for NIPT were advanced maternal age (≥ 35 years), serological borderline risk, and single serological marker median (MoM) abnormality, with the constituent ratios of 27.35% (67/245), 19.18% (47/245) and 17.55% (43/245), respectively. In these 245 pregnant women at high-risk of RATs, the most common screening-risk results were trisomy 7 (33.88%), trisomy 8 (13.47%), trisomy 20 (11.43%), trisomy 3 (7.35%), and trisomy 10 (6.12%); the rarest conditions were trisomy 6 (0.41%), trisomy 12 (0.82%), trisomy 14 (0.82%), and trisomy 4 (1.22%). Trisomy 1, 17 and 19 weren't screened. The positive predictive value (PPV) for RATs in women at high-risk was 13.06%, and the PPVs for trisomy 9, 16, 15, 10 and 2 were 42.86%, 40.00%, 25.00%, 20.00%, and 16.67%, respectively. NIPT indicated that for pregnant women at high-risk of RATs, the PPVs for trisomy 9, 16, 15 and 10 were relatively high, while the PPV for other trisomies were low. With the exception of trisomy 9, 15, 16 and 10, most RATs were associated with good pregnancy outcomes. In clinical genetic counseling for RATs, the principle of individualized medicine should be reflected, and different prenatal diagnostic measures should be adopted for different RATs to advise pregnant women on whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy.
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.