ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Chromosomal microarray analysis for the prenatal diagnosis in fetuses with fetal echogenic bowel: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveFetal echogenic bowel (FEB) is often accompanied by the presence of chromosomal abnormalities. Here, we intend to evaluate the efficiency of chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) for identifying fetal risks associated with FEB, with a focus on chromosomal abnormalities and adverse pregnancy outcomes linked to FEB. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included a total of 446 pregnant women who underwent CMA and had intrauterine fetuses with FEB. This cohort was classified into multiple subgroups for analysis, so as to obtain the relationships among FEB in different groups, chromosome microarray results, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
resultsFor fetuses with non-isolated FEB, the pathogenicity rate and microarray abnormality rate were higher than those with isolated FEB. Surprisingly, this study found that the detection rate of pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs) in FEB during the second trimester was higher than that in the third trimester. Conversely, the detection rate of FEB with variants of uncertain significance (VOUS) in the third trimester was higher than that in the second trimester. The pathogenic CNVs in cases with combined ultrasound soft markers was higher than those without, and the more soft markers were combined, the higher the abnormal rate and pathogenic rate. The detection rate of FEB with VOUS in pregnant women with a history of adverse pregnancy outcomes was higher than those without such a history. The correlations between soft markers and FEB or gestational age (GA) at diagnosis and FEB were risk factors for abnormal CMA results in FEB cases. The correlation between GA at diagnosis and FEB was a risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes in FEB cases.
conclusionBoth the GA at diagnosis and soft markers are important factors for predicting CMA abnormalities. The correlation between the GA at diagnosis and FEB is also a risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes of FEB.
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.