ArticleHuman genetics1994
Fluorescence in situ hybridization on paraffin-embedded abortion material as a means of retrospective chromosome analysis.
Article in Human genetics, 1994. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) procedure was used to detect chromosome abnormalities in archival abortion material. Nuclei were isolated from 50-microns-thick tissue blocks from 18 selected and karyotyped abortions. Five probes for repetitive centromeric sequences of chromosomes 1, 16, 18, X and Y were used. For each chromosome, at least 200 nuclei were scored blindly, i.e. without knowledge of the karyotype. The FISH results obtained were compatible with the cytogenetic data in 14 cases. There were four discrepancies. Two of these were observed for cases karyotyped as trisomy 16. Furthermore, FISH results showed trisomy 18 in two cases having normal chromosomes 18 and 18q+, respectively. The latter case was not discrepant if the structural rearrangement involved chromosome 18 material. The remaining discrepancies could be explained by chromosomal mosaicism. Admixture of normal maternal cells was also noted. It is concluded that FISH can be used to study retrospectively the presence of chromosome abnormalities in abortion material. However, the quality obtained after the use of fresh material is superior.
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.