ArticleIranian journal of public health2025
Diagnostic Accuracy and Chromosomal Microarray and Karyotype Analysis with Different Clinical Biomarkers for Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetal Genetic Diseases.
Article in Iranian journal of public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: We compared the diagnostic accuracy and application value of chromosome microarray (CMA) technique and karyotype analysis for prenatal diagnosis of fetal genetic diseases using different clinical markers. Methods: This is a prospective clinical study involving 1587 pregnant women who underwent amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis due to various abnormal clinical indications in China between May 2018 and Nov 2021. Both chromosome microarray and karyotype analysis were applied. Participants were categorized into six groups based on different indications for prenatal diagnosis. The detection rates of chromosome microarray and karyotype analysis were compared. The study utilized SPSS version 20 for data analysis, employing descriptive statistics for count data results and chi-square statistics for statistical associations between outcomes and predictors. Results: Chromosome microarray and karyotype analysis detected more abnormal chromosomes in the group with abnormal NIPT, with positive detection rates of 59.68% and the group in other situation with positive detection rates of 39.22%. Overall, 343 chromosome abnormalities were detected among participants. Overall, 101 cases chose induced labor, 240 cases gave birth, 1 newborn died after delivery, 1 case of twin chose selective reduction, another fetus gave birth, and 1 case lost to follow-up. The detection rate of chromosome abnormality in high-risk population was more than 1/5, highlighting the importance of reducing the incidence of birth defects through interventional prenatal diagnosis. Conclusion: Clinically, Down's screening, NIPT and prenatal ultrasound screening can be conducted initially, followed by karyotype analysis and CMA detection for those with abnormal findings.
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.