ArticleFrontiers in urology2023
Comparison of web-based information about cell-free DNA prenatal screening: implications for differences of sex development care.
Article in Frontiers in urology, 2023. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) prenatal screening is a commercially available noninvasive test that detects fetal genetic material in maternal blood. While expectant parents often use it for "gender" determination, there is little information about unintended consequences of testing, such as revelation of a difference of sex development (DSD). The study aimed to characterize currently available website information about cfDNA and compare the cfDNA-related content. Methods: A systematic search for websites with information about cfDNA was conducted using search terms generated by a natural language processing analysis of the results of an Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) survey of 1,000 parents and then performing a "Google" search, using the terms. Commercial cfDNA testing companies (CC) websites were also identified by consulting a genetic counselor (AGW). Data were collected on about each website's characteristics and information about cfDNA. Information about cfDNA was compared between websites. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test or Kruskal-Wallis test were applied, as appropriate. Results: Sixty websites were identified. After eliminating duplicates, 11 commercial company (CC) websites were identified. Nineteen other websites were reviewed of which six overlapped with five CC websites. Most of the websites had non-professional authors (73.7%), such as laypersons and CC representatives. CC websites were significantly more likely than search term-identified websites to state that cfDNA can screen for trisomy 21 ( Conclusions: This study shows that most website currently available information for expectant parents about cfDNA prenatal screening is produced by non-professional organizations. There are significant differences between the information provided by CC and Google search websites, specifically about the number of conditions screened for by cfDNA. Improving availability and quality of information about cfDNA could improve counseling future expectant parents. Inclusion of information about the potential for detection of a DSD is needed.
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.