Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42230531›Full record

SynthesisPrenatal diagnosis2026

Quality of Evidence for Prenatal Down Syndrome Screening: An Umbrella Review.

Yuehua Zhang, Yingying Wang, Xinlong Wang, Ling Liu, Kaijuan Wang

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Yuehua ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.
Yingying WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.
Xinlong WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.
Ling LiuDepartment of Prenatal Diagnosis Center, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0426-2414
Kaijuan WangDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Henan Children's Hospital, Zhengzhou Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital Affiliated to Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3300-9453

Funding

Henan Science and Technology Department 241111311300Henan Science and Technology Department 251111313000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMany systematic reviews (SRs) report the accuracy of prenatal Down syndrome screening, but their methodological quality has not been comprehensively evaluated. This umbrella review assessed the quality, compared non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) with traditional screening, and evaluated the findings' robustness.

methodWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and multiple other databases from inception to March 24, 2026, for SRs, including gray literature sources as specified in the methods. Methodological quality, risk of bias, and evidence certainty were assessed using AMSTAR 2, ROBIS, and GRADE. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024597291).

resultsOf 42 included SRs, NIPT and combined screening were the most common. AMSTAR 2 ratings indicated that 88.1% (37/42) of SRs were of low or critically low confidence; 66.7% SRs were judged to have a high risk of bias; and high-quality evidence was scarce (9.6%). Despite this, NIPT's higher accuracy was maintained in sensitivity analyses, showing higher sensitivity (93.0%-100.0%) and specificity (96.0%-100.0%) than traditional methods, which showed wider performance variation (e.g., biochemical screening sensitivity: 28.0%-89.0%).

conclusionThe methodological quality of SRs evaluating Down syndrome screening is limited. Nevertheless, NIPT consistently shows higher accuracy than traditional screening. NIPT implementation should be prioritized where feasible, while future primary research requires large, prospective studies.

Indexed as

Down SyndromeNoninvasive Prenatal TestingPrenatal DiagnosisFemaleHumansPregnancydown syndromeevidence qualitynon‐invasive prenatal testingprenatal screeningsystematic reviewumbrella review

Identifiers

PMID42230531
PMCPMC13446524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.