ArticleAnnals of medicine2025
Results and indications changes by prenatal diagnosis of 3,458 pregnant women: a 10-year retrospective study.
Article in Annals of medicine, 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.
- Technological Advances in Molecular Diagnostic Methods for Hereditary Diseases in Preconception and Prenatal Settings.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Risk factors for paternal perinatal depression in Chinese advanced maternal age couples: A regression mixture model.World journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
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
backgroundThis study investigated changes in prenatal diagnostic indications among pregnant women in Heilongjiang Province, China, over a 10-year period (2014-2023) and evaluated the clinical efficacy of karyotype analysis and copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq) for prenatal diagnosis.
methodWe retrospectively analyzed data from pregnant women who underwent amniocentesis based on prenatal diagnostic criteria from January 2014 to June 2023 and provided consent, focusing on prenatal diagnostic indications, fetal chromosomal karyotype analyses, and CNV-seq results.
resultAmong the 3,458 pregnant women, prenatal diagnosis indications included a high risk of NIPT (23.13%, 800/3,458) and a high risk of biochemical serological screening (22.30%, 771/3,458). Since 2017, the proportion of NIPT combined with fetal ultrasound abnormalities rose steadily, reaching 57.14% after 2020. Karyotype analysis was performed on 3,341 successfully cultured samples, revealing an abnormal karyotype detection rate of 18.25% (610/3,341). Structural chromosomal abnormalities accounted for 35.08% (214/610), followed by trisomy 21 (34.26%, 209/610) and sex chromosomal abnormalities (20%, 122/610). The overall positive predictive value (PPV) of NIPT was 44.40%, with a PPV for trisomy 21 of 81.72%. CNV-seq testing covered 2,771 samples, detecting pathogenic variations in 16.60% (460/2,771). Notably, 80 cases of pathogenic variation were identified in samples with normal karyotypes, and 14 cases were found in 108 samples without karyotyping. The highest pathogenic variation detection rate was observed in the NIPT high-risk group(42.21%, 320/758). Combining CNV-seq with other tests increased the anomaly detection rate to 20.36% (704/3,458), a 2.11% improvement over karyotype analysis alone.
conclusionIn recent 10 years, prenatal diagnosis indications in Heilongjiang Province have shifted to a "NIPT high-risk + abnormal ultrasound" pattern. Combined karyotype and CNV-seq testing achieves a 20.36% anomaly detection rate. NIPT enables non-invasive screening for fetal chromosome aneuploidy, while CNV-seq - a key technology for accurate prenatal diagnosis - helps reduce birth defects.
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.