ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2025
Residual Risks of Fetal Chromosome Aberrations When Cell-Free DNA Prenatal Screening Is Normal: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 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.
- Discrepant findings of prenatal diagnostics in a case of fetal partial trisomy 21 and fetoplacental mosaicism.Molecular cytogenetics · 2026Article
- Residual Risks of Fetal Chromosome Aberrations When Cell-Free DNA Prenatal Screening Is Normal: A Retrospective Study.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the residual risk of fetal chromosomal aberrations in pregnant women with normal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening results to refine prenatal counseling.
methodsA retrospective single-center study was conducted between April-2017 and March-2021. In total, 46,007 women received a normal cfDNA screening result. The cohort was subdivided into women receiving normal results for only chromosomes 13/18/21 (targeted cfDNA) and all autosomes (genome-wide cfDNA with a test resolution ∼10-20 Mb). Cytogenomic follow-up included prenatal or postnatal chromosomal microarray (CMA) data.
resultsOut of 46,007 women with normal cfDNA results, 806 (1.8%) were referred for CMA testing; the majority (511/806) were referred due to ultrasound anomalies. The residual risk for a pathogenic chromosomal aberration in the entire targeted cfDNA cohort was 1:641 (0.15%); in the genome-wide cfDNA group, it was 1:699 (0.14%). For fetuses with ultrasound anomalies, the residual risk for a pathogenic chromosomal aberration in the targeted-cfDNA group was 1:8 (13.3%), and 1:12 (8.1%) in the genome-wide cfDNA group.
conclusionsThe residual risk of a pathogenic CNV after a normal cfDNA result is low in women who opt for screening. However, when ultrasound anomalies are detected, this risk is severely increased, justifying the use of invasive testing even with normal cfDNA results. These figures can be used for pre-and-post-test 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.