ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Complementary role of echocardiography, karyotyping, and chromosomal microarray in congenital cardiac anomalies.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the diagnostic efficacy of echocardiography, chromosome karyotyping, and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) in congenital cardiac anomalies. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 3,386 pregnant women who underwent echocardiography and amniocentesis at the Sichuan Provincial Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital between January 2020 and August 2022. The study group included 697 women whose fetuses were diagnosed with congenital heart disease (CHD) by echocardiography, while the comparison group included 2,689 women with normal echocardiographic results. The diagnostic contributions of echocardiography, karyotyping, and CMA were compared between the two groups. Results: Among the 697 cases diagnosed with CHD, the most common types were ventricular septal defect (44.45%) and valve abnormalities (40.66%). Chromosomal abnormalities were detected in 41 out of 629 CHD cases (6.52%) by karyotyping, with higher rates in complex CHD (16.36%) and CHD with extracardiac anomalies (23.08%) compared to the comparison group (4.71%). CMA identified 34 pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs) (5.28%) and 9 variants of unknown significance (VOUS) (1.40%) in 644 CHD cases, with higher CNV detection rates in complex CHD (7.69%) and CHD with extracardiac anomalies (7.69%) compared to the comparison group (1.38%). CMA further identified pathogenic CNVs in 4.42% (26/588) of CHD cases with a normal karyotype, yielding an incremental diagnostic rate of 4.42%. Conclusion: Echocardiography remains the cornerstone for the prenatal detection of fetal heart malformations. When combined with karyotyping and CMA, this integrated approach achieves maximal detection of both macroscopic and submicroscopic genomic alterations-particularly in complex cardiac malformations or when extracardiac anomalies coexist-thereby delivering timely, comprehensive genetic information to guide early intervention and tailored perinatal counseling.
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.