SynthesisPrenatal diagnosis2026
A Framework for Bioinformatic Reporting in Prenatal Sequencing: Insights From a Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Prenatal diagnosis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Yield of Sequencing for Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetal Structural Anomalies: An Updated Systematic Review.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Pooled it
- Ensuring transparency and clinical utility in SMA noninvasive prenatal diagnosis.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Global recommendations for the use of diagnostic genomic sequencing in the prenatal setting on behalf of the ESHG and ISPD.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
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
Genomic sequencing has become a key tool in the investigation of foetal anomalies, with a growing shift from targeted panels to exome and genome sequencing. These broader approaches generate significantly more data, underscoring the need for robust bioinformatics pipelines. However, practices vary widely between laboratories. This systematic review explores current differences in bioinformatics workflows, the transparency of reporting, and the clinical impact of these variations. Using a search strategy from a previous review of prenatal sequencing studies (2018-2022), we identified 89 new records. Combined with 65 from the earlier review, a total of 154 articles were included. Data extraction focused on bioinformatics pipeline details across all analytical stages, with attention to clinical relevance. We found that reporting of bioinformatics methods was frequently incomplete. Tool names and versions were often omitted, quality control steps were poorly described, and filtering strategies lacked reproducibility. These deficiencies in reporting hinder readers from fully interpreting the sequencing results and understanding the potential limitations. To address this, we propose a checklist of essential bioinformatics metrics to improve reporting standards and support reproducible, clinically meaningful analyses.
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.