ArticlePloS one2025
Expanded non-invasive prenatal testing offers better detection of fetal copy number variations but not chromosomal aneuploidies.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prenatal diagnosis strategies and pregnancy outcomes in the Luohe region of China in the context of increasing maternal age.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Clinical Implications and Limitations of Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Detecting Fetal Copy Number Variations: A Multicenter Study in Shaanxi Province, China.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the clinical performance of expanded non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT-plus) and compare its effectiveness in screening for chromosomal aneuploidies with that of NIPT.
methodsScreening results, confirmatory invasive testing results, and follow-up data from pregnant women who underwent either NIPT (6792 cases) or NIPT-Plus (5237 cases) testing at Luohe Central Hospital, China, from January 2019 to June 2023 were collected. The positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, and other indicators for different types of chromosomal abnormalities in NIPT/NIPT-plus screening were calculated. The willingness of pregnant women with various types of abnormalities to undergo confirmatory invasive testing and the proportion of pregnancy terminations were investigated.
resultsThe average number of unique reads in NIPT-plus samples was 5.26 times greater than that in NIPT samples. There was no significant difference in the PPV or positive rate between NIPT-plus and NIPT for screening chromosomal aneuploidies. Compared with the low-risk group, the high-risk group had a greater PPV; however, in the NIPT-plus group, there was no significant disparity in the PPV between the low-risk and high-risk groups. Compared with rare autosomal aneuploidies (RAAs), pregnant women had a higher rate of confirmatory invasive testing for common trisomies, sex chromosomal abnormalities (SCAs), and copy number variations (CNVs). However, the rate of pregnancy termination for common trisomies, RAAs, and CNVs was higher than that for SCAs.
conclusionBy enhancing sequencing data, NIPT-plus can effectively screen for CNVs as well as chromosomal aneuploidies. However, NIPT-plus does not have an advantage over standard NIPT in screening for chromosomal aneuploidies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.