ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Borderline Z-scores in non-invasive prenatal screening: does its presence hold clinical significance?
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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.
- Borderline Z-scores in NIPT: from ambiguity to actionable reporting.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate the utility of repeated testing for the detection of fetal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from maternal peripheral blood in cases with borderline Z-scores and to analyze the associated pregnancy outcomes.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 83,443 pregnant women who voluntarily underwent non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) at the Affiliated Women and Children's Hospital of Ningbo University between January 2020 and January 2024. Pregnant women whose initial NIPT results indicated borderline Z-scores were subsequently followed up.
resultsAmong 83,443 pregnant women undergoing NIPT, 700 cases (0.84%) initially showed borderline Z-scores. After retesting, this number decreased to 211 cases (0.25%) and further decreased to 26 cases (0.03%) after re-sampling. Among the initial 700 cases, 34 exhibited abnormal NIPT results, corresponding to a positive rate of 5.29%. Subsequent prenatal diagnosis confirmed a total of six fetal abnormalities, including one case of trisomy 13 mosaicism, one case of trisomy 21 mosaicism, one case of 47,XXY, two cases of copy number variations (CNVs), and one case with B-ultrasound findings indicating an abnormality (nuchal translucency [NT] of 3.5 mm and omphalocele). The overall rate of fetal abnormalities was 0.9%.
conclusionInitial NIPT outcomes suggested elevated screening positive rates and a higher incidence of fetal abnormalities among cases with borderline Z-scores compared to the general population. Establishing a defined borderline Z-score threshold in NIPT protocols is crucial to mitigate the risk of missed screenings. Implementing re-construction and/or re-sampling procedures significantly reduces the failure rate attributed to borderline Z-scores, facilitating the accurate identification of most of pregnancies with normal fetal development and decreasing the need for unnecessary invasive prenatal diagnostic interventions. Pregnant women with detection failures due to borderline Z-scores should be actively counseled and encouraged to pursue 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.