ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2026
Diagnosed After Birth-But Detectable Before? A Cohort Study of Prenatal Testing Potential.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the yield of prenatal genetic testing in infants with a confirmed genetic diagnosis.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed records of infants with a genetic diagnosis who were evaluated using a standardized genetic consult and testing approach. The predicted yield of various prenatal genetic sceening and diagnostic tools in this cohort was determined and compared.
resultsGenome sequencing had the highest predicted diagnostic yield (96.9%), followed by CMA with reflex to exome sequencing (95.5%), exome sequencing alone (93.8%) and CMA alone (43.6%). ACOG-recommended NIPT and carrier screening could have detected 25.4% of diagnoses, while 55.3% were detectable through genome-wide NIPT and a large carrier screening panel. Genome-wide NIPT improved chromosomal abnormality detection by ∼30% compared with ACOG-recommended NIPT. A large commercial carrier screening panel detected 26.1% of single-gene conditions, versus 6.1% with the ACOG-recommended panel. Overall, 62% of single-gene conditions were undetectable with current screening tools.
conclusionPrenatal ES or GS offers high diagnostic yields and a streamlined approach, suggesting that CMA may not be the most appropriate first-line test unless there is strong suspicion of a chromosomal diagnosis. Although prenatal genetic screening is valuable, its ability to identify rare genetic conditions remains limited. Our findings support revising the ACOG/ACMG guidelines to align with postnatal testing recommendations, particularly in high-risk pregnancies.
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.