Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33805390›Full record

ReviewGenes2021

Chances and Challenges of New Genetic Screening Technologies (NIPT) in Prenatal Medicine from a Clinical Perspective: A Narrative Review.

Ivonne Bedei, Aline Wolter, Axel Weber, Fabrizio Signore, Roland Axt-Fliedner

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The role of mid-trimester ultrasound scan: scope and limitations.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2023
    Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ivonne BedeiDepartment of Prenatal Medicine and Fetal Therapy, Justus Liebig University Giessen, 35392 Giessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7688-5357
Aline WolterDepartment of Prenatal Medicine and Fetal Therapy, Justus Liebig University Giessen, 35392 Giessen, Germany.
Axel WeberInstitute of Human Genetics, Justus Liebig University Giessen, 35392 Giessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3884-2970
Fabrizio SignoreDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Opedale S. Eugenio, 00144 Rome, Italy.
Roland Axt-FliednerDepartment of Prenatal Medicine and Fetal Therapy, Justus Liebig University Giessen, 35392 Giessen, Germany.
Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DESt. Eugenio Hospital · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1959, 63 years after the death of John Langdon Down, Jérôme Lejeune discovered trisomy 21 as the genetic reason for Down syndrome. Screening for Down syndrome has been applied since the 1960s by using maternal age as the risk parameter. Since then, several advances have been made. First trimester screening, combining maternal age, maternal serum parameters and ultrasound findings, emerged in the 1990s with a detection rate (DR) of around 90-95% and a false positive rate (FPR) of around 5%, also looking for trisomy 13 and 18. With the development of high-resolution ultrasound, around 50% of fetal anomalies are now detected in the first trimester. Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for trisomy 21, 13 and 18 is a highly efficient screening method and has been applied as a first-line or a contingent screening approach all over the world since 2012, in some countries without a systematic screening program. Concomitant with the rise in technology, the possibility of screening for other genetic conditions by analysis of cfDNA, such as sex chromosome anomalies (SCAs), rare autosomal anomalies (RATs) and microdeletions and duplications, is offered by different providers to an often not preselected population of pregnant women. Most of the research in the field is done by commercial providers, and some of the tests are on the market without validated data on test performance. This raises difficulties in the counseling process and makes it nearly impossible to obtain informed consent. In parallel with the advent of new screening technologies, an expansion of diagnostic methods has begun to be applied after invasive procedures. The karyotype has been the gold standard for decades. Chromosomal microarrays (CMAs) able to detect deletions and duplications on a submicroscopic level have replaced the conventional karyotyping in many countries. Sequencing methods such as whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) tremendously amplify the diagnostic yield in fetuses with ultrasound anomalies.

Indexed as

Chromosome DisordersFemaleGenetic TestingHumansMicroarray AnalysisPregnancyPrenatal Diagnosischromosomal microarray (CMA)copy number variant (CNV)non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD)non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)rare autosomal trisomy (RAT)sex chromosome anomaly (SCA)whole exome sequencing (WES)whole genome sequencing (WGS)

Identifiers

PMID33805390
PMCPMC8065512
OpenAlexW3144556442

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.