ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
In the era of copy number variation sequencing: changes in the target population for prenatal diagnosis and what is the optimal prenatal diagnostic strategy?
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Copy number variation sequencing (CNV-Seq) has become a first-line prenatal diagnostic technology. The purpose of this study was to investigate the changes in the target population for prenatal diagnosis in the CNV-Seq era and to assess the clinical value and economic costs of combining the use of CNV-Seq with karyotyping. Methods: The prenatal diagnostic indications of 3,931 pregnant women (3,952 samples of amniotic fluid) in three groups were statistically analyzed. The detection rates (DRs) of karyotype or CNV-Seq for each indication were determined. The abnormal results from karyotyping or CNV-Seq were analyzed. The detection efficiencies of karyotyping and CNV-Seq for each type of chromosomal abnormality were compared. The DRs of chromosomal abnormalities and the economic costs of the three prenatal diagnosis strategies were assessed. Results: Ultrasonic anomalies were the leading indications for the occurrence of copy number variation in prenatal diagnosis. The DRs for chromosomal abnormalities were 3.72% with karyotyping and 16.20% with CNV-Seq. The DRs of chromosomal abnormalities increased from 7.02% to 15.81% when CNV-Seq was combined with karyotyping in the Karyotype and CNV-Seq group. CNV-Seq confirmed the small supernumerary marker chromosome and unidentified karyotypes detected by karyotyping. Both karyotyping and CNV-Seq are capable of detecting low-level mosaicism. Conclusion: In the era of CNV-Seq, the target population for prenatal diagnosis is expanding. Combining CNV-Seq with karyotyping can increase the DRs of fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Therefore, combined testing is an efficient and relatively cost-effective prenatal diagnostic strategy.
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.