ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025
A retrospective study for the diagnostic value of chromosomal microarray analysis in fetuses with high-risk prenatal indications.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 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.
- Advancing Prenatal Diagnosis: From Conventional Karyotyping to Genome-Wide CNV Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Ancillary and Advanced Techniques for the Postmortem Examination.Pediatric and developmental pathology : the official journal of the Society for Pediatric Pathology and the Paediatric Pathology SocietyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for fetuses at high risk for various conditions on chromosomal abnormalities. Methods: In the study, 8,560 clinical samples were collected from pregnant women between February 2018 and June 2022, including 75 villus, 7,642 amniotic fluid, and 843 umbilical cord blood samples. All samples were screening for chromosomal abnormalities using both CMA and karyotyping. This retrospective analysis included 8,560 pregnancies with high-risk indications for invasive prenatal diagnosis, mainly including ultrasound anomalies, high risk for maternal serum screening (MMS), high risk for non-invasive prenatal tests (NIPTs), family history of genetic disorders or birth defects, and advanced maternal age (AMA). All samples were evaluated using invasive CMA. The rate of clinically significant genomic imbalances between the different groups was compared. Results: The success rate of CMA was 99.95% (8,556/8,560). A total of 1,037 samples (12.11%, 1,037/8,560) were presented with chromosomal abnormalities using CMA, whereas 803 samples (9.38%, 803/8,560) were shown with chromosomal abnormalities using karyotyping. The overall prenatal diagnostic yield was 1,040 (12.14%) of 8,560 pregnancies. Clinically significant genomic aberrations were identified in 153 (6.21%) of 2,463 patients with non-structural ultrasound anomalies, 79 (6.38%) of 1,238 with structural ultrasound anomalies, 37 (4.26%) of 868 at high risk from MSS, 395 (42.29%) of 934 at high risk from NIPTs, 16 (2.94%) of 544 with a family history, 7 (1.89%) of 369 with AMA, 1 (1.56%) of 64 with a history of adverse exposure, 10 (4.46%) of 224 with parental chromosome anomaly, and 9 (2.99%) of 301 with other indications. Conclusion: CMA has a greater diagnostic value for screening chromosomal abnormalities, especially in pregnant women with normal karyotypes. The diagnostic yields of CMA for pregnancies with different indications greatly varied. CMA could serve as a first-tier test for structural anomalies, especially multiple anomalies, hydrops fetalis, cystic hygroma, and thickened nuchal translucency or nuchal fold.
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.