ArticleCase reports in women's health2026
False negativity for trisomy 18 in non-invasive prenatal testing: A case report.
Article in Case reports in women's health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
False-negative results in non-invasive prenatal testing are rare but clinically significant, particularly in the presence of biological factors such as feto-placental mosaicism. This report describes a pregnancy affected by fetal trisomy 18 in which three consecutive non-invasive prenatal tests reported low risk despite abnormal first-trimester ultrasound findings (increased nuchal translucency, hydrops fetalis, and tricuspid regurgitation). Amniocentesis subsequently confirmed trisomy 18 in the fetus. Post-termination placental analysis revealed mosaicism, with high trisomy 18 levels on the fetal side (up to 76%) and lower levels on the maternal side (20%) of the placenta. This distribution resulted in an estimated "effective fetal fraction" below the standard detection threshold for a non-invasive prenatal test (∼4%). These findings highlight the limitations of non-invasive prenatal testing as a screening test and underscore the importance of invasive diagnostic testing when structural abnormalities are detected. Consideration of biological variables such as placental mosaicism is essential for accurate interpretation and clinical decision-making.
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.