ArticleJournal of human genetics2026
A nationwide survey on attitudes of obstetricians and gynecologists toward comprehensive prenatal genetic testing in Japan.
Article in Journal of human genetics, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comprehensive prenatal genetic testing expands the range of conditions that can be diagnosed before birth. However, its appropriate use requires a high genetic literacy level. This study aimed to identify challenges associated with the clinical implementation of comprehensive prenatal genetic testing in Japan through a survey of obstetricians and gynecologists. A total of 663 obstetricians and gynecologists (response rate: 34.6%) affiliated with facilities providing intrapartum care nationwide participated. The mean duration of clinical experience was 26.9 years, and 85% had experience performing prenatal genetic testing. Regarding diagnostic testing using chromosomal microarray analysis or whole-exome sequencing, 5% responded that it was "already implemented," whereas 47% responded that they were "unsure whether implementation should be considered." For non-invasive prenatal testing targeting conditions beyond trisomies 21, 18, and 13, 63% were "positive about implementation." Clinical geneticists or obstetricians and gynecologists certified in perinatal genetics were significantly more likely to cite restricting testing at non-certified institutions as a reason for supporting implementation (p < 0.01). Few obstetricians and gynecologists certified in perinatal genetics cited "to avoid unnecessary invasive diagnostic testing" (p = 0.02) and "to improve the child's prognosis" (p < 0.01). Therefore, obstetricians and gynecologists certified in perinatal genetics were more likely to cite social issues, such as the presence of non-certified facilities, whereas fewer cited avoiding invasive diagnostic testing or improving child outcomes. As comprehensive prenatal testing is implemented, further investigation into the factors underlying these perceptions, together with ongoing education and awareness initiatives regarding the benefits and values of prenatal genetic testing, including NIPT, will be important.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42521816What 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.