Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1994
Antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis: a trial of the couple model.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 84 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antenatal screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis: randomised trial of stepwise v couple screening.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1995Trial
- Attitudes toward cystic fibrosis carrier and prenatal testing and utilization of carrier testing among relatives of individuals with cystic fibrosis.Journal of genetic counseling · 1999Article
- Cystic fibrosis screening: a fetus with hyperechogenic bowel may be the index case.Journal of medical genetics · 1998Article
- Costs, effects, and savings of screening for cystic fibrosis gene carriers.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 1998Article
- Influence of five years of antenatal screening on the paediatric cystic fibrosis population in one region.Archives of disease in childhood · 1998Article
- PCR-based screening for cystic fibrosis carrier mutations in an ethnically diverse pregnant population.American journal of human genetics · 1997Article
- Prenatal screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis should screen both partners individually.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- The views of general practitioners on community carrier screening for cystic fibrosis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1996Article
- Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis. Realistic cost must be established for genetic counselling in two step screening.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1995Article
- Direct marketing of cystic fibrosis carrier screening: commercial push or population need?Journal of medical genetics · 1995Article
- Stepwise or couple antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis?: women's preferences and willingness to pay.Journal of medical genetics · 1995Article
- Carrier screening in the community.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 1995Review
- The ethics of genetic screening: the first report of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics: another personal view.Journal of medical ethics · 1994Article
- Screening for cystic fibrosis. Screening before pregnancy is preferred.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1994Article
- Screening for cystic fibrosis. Antenatal testing has higher yield.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1994Article
- Screening for cystic fibrosis. General practitioners should be involved.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1994Article
- Screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1994Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the delivery and acceptability of antenatal couple screening for cystic fibrosis. Carrier status was notified only when both members of a partnership had cystic fibrosis alleles and therefore a one in four risk of having an affected child.
designMouthwash samples were tested when both partners participated. Results were returned only to positive couples.
settingTwo large maternity hospitals in Edinburgh. SUBJECTS: Screening was offered to all couples who booked at one of the two hospitals.
main outcome measures(a) The take up of screening, carriers and carrier couples identified, take up of prenatal diagnosis, and numbers of affected fetuses detected; (b) questionnaire measures of patient satisfaction and stress.
resultsScreening was offered to 8536 couples. 714 (8.4%) were regarded as ineligible, usually because of late booking or absence of a partner. 1900 (24.3%) of the remainder declined screening. Among the 5922 screened couples, four tested positive--that is, both partners were cystic fibrosis heterozygotes. All four elected to have prenatal diagnosis. There were three terminations of pregnancy because of an affected fetus, one couple having two successive pregnancies with affected fetuses. The participation rate was 76% for eligible couples (5922/7822) and 69% for all couples (5922/8536). Only 89 screened couples (1.5%) requested information on individual carrier status. No anxiety was detected among a cohort of the screened population, and 99% of questioned participants expressed satisfaction with the concept of couple screening.
conclusionsAntenatal couple screening is a satisfactory and acceptable way of screening for cystic fibrosis and has been adopted as routine in the two trial hospitals.
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.