ArticleJournal of community genetics2026
Genetic counselors' perspectives on the expanded use of non-invasive prenatal testing.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is well established for detecting common autosomal aneuploidies. Its application to sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs), microdeletion/microduplication syndromes (MMSs), and single-gene disorders (SGDs) is expanding, yet opinions of genetic counselors on these indications remain variable. A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted between October and December 2024 among 51 practicing genetic counselors across 14 countries. The 18-item questionnaire assessed perceived utility, analytic accuracy, and clinical appropriateness of NIPT for SCAs, MMSs, and SGDs. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics, and ordinal logistic regression evaluated associations with demographic factors. Perceived utility was highest for SCAs (86% agreement), followed by SGDs (80%) and MMSs (67%). Confidence in test accuracy was lower, particularly for MMSs (55%). Routine use of NIPT for SCAs was supported by 88% of respondents. For SGDs, 47% endorsed routine use, while 45% recommended use only in specific contexts. Professional experience significantly predicted willingness to recommend NIPT for SGDs (OR = 1.15 per year, p = 0.017), independent of age or sex. Genetic counselors strongly support SCA screening and show conditional enthusiasm toward MMS and SGD testing. Experience-driven variation highlights the need for continued education, stronger validation data, and targeted policy development.
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.