ArticlePloS one2025
Clinical application of single nucleotide polymorphism array in prenatal diagnosis: Experience with 8753 samples.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array has been applied to prenatal diagnosis. This study aimed to assess the clinical significance of SNP array in diagnosing fetal chromosomal anomalies based on our experience.
methodsA total of 8753 pregnant women with high-risk prenatal indications were enrolled in this retrospective study. Demographic characteristics, chromosomal abnormalities and follow-up results were collected.
resultsData showed that the overall abnormality detection rate of SNP array was 16.9%, including the detection rate of 7.7% in aneuploidy, the detection rate of 4.2% and 4.4% in pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs) and variants of uncertain significance. The total abnormality detection rate was 15.3%, 22.0% and 38.4% for pregnant women with single risk indication, two kinds of indications and more than two kinds of indications, respectively. The detection rates in the three groups were statistically significant. Additionally, fetus with the positive noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) results had the highest abnormality detection rate (38.8%), followed by participants with the abnormal ultrasound findings (13.1%). 98.8% of pregnant women simultaneously chose traditional karyotyping and got their karyotype results. The concordant rate between karyotyping and SNP array was 89.0%, with some structural abnormalities and low-level mosaicism being missed by SNP array, while SNP array additionally found the microduplication/microdeletion.
conclusionsSNP array would be a valuable technology in prenatal diagnosis, with different abnormality detection rate in pregnant women with various risk indications. SNP array combined with the traditional karyotyping could provide more information for prenatal diagnosis.
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.