ArticleMolecular cytogenetics2025
Prenatal diagnosis of 1q21.1 microdeletions and microduplications: a retrospective case series.
Article in Molecular cytogenetics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to characterize the prenatal features, inheritance patterns, and outcomes of 1q21.1 copy number variations (CNVs) and refine prenatal counseling strategies.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 20 consecutive prenatal cases diagnosed with 1q21.1 CNVs between 2017 and 2024. Genetic testing included karyotyping, chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), and copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq). Phenotypic data, inheritance patterns, and pregnancy outcomes were evaluated.
resultsThe cohort comprised 12 microdeletions (60%) and 8 microduplications (40%). Ultrasound anomalies were detected in 66.7% (8/12) of microdeletion cases (e.g., fetal growth restriction, cardiac defects) and 37.5% (3/8) of microduplication cases (e.g., nasal bone hypoplasia). No specific prenatal ultrasound markers pathognomonic for 1q21.1 CNVs were identified. Termination of pregnancy (TOP) was elected in 50% (10/20) of cases, predominantly for de novo CNVs (80% of TOP decisions). Among live-born infants (n = 9), no overt abnormalities were detected during postnatal follow-up (3 months to 5 years).
conclusionPrenatal 1q21.1 CNVs demonstrate incomplete penetrance and variable expressivity, without consistent association with specific prenatal ultrasound markers. The TOP rate for de novo CNVs reflects profound parental anxiety regarding neurodevelopmental outcomes. These findings underscore the critical need for comprehensive prenatal counseling that integrates genomic findings, phenotypic severity, and psychosocial support.
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.