ReviewPrenatal diagnosis2025
International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis 2024 Debate 3-Cytogenetics Is a Dinosaur and Should Be Replaced by Molecular Technologies.
Review in Prenatal diagnosis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cytogenetics in the genomics era: why karyotyping still matters.BMC medical genomics · 2026Review
- International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis 2024 Debate 3-Cytogenetics Is a Dinosaur and Should Be Replaced by Molecular Technologies.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Review
- Cancer Cytogenetics: Deep Roots, New Branches in the Age of Omics.Cancer genomics & proteomicsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cytogenetic technologies such as G-banding chromosome and FISH analyses have long been the gold standard diagnostic test in prenatal genetic testing. However, unbiased next-generation sequencing technologies such as fetal exome or genome sequencing (ES/GS) are becoming widely accessible and increasingly utilized, particularly for fetuses with structural anomalies. Emerging studies are now establishing increased diagnostic yields from molecular technologies, but there remains a lack of consensus as to whether ES/GS should replace cytogenetic technologies and targeted genepanel screening as first-line tests for all prenatal diagnoses. This report is a summary of the debate on this topic presented at the 28th International Conference on Prenatal Diagnosis and Fetal Therapy. Both expert debaters discussed the advantages and disadvantages.
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.