ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Ultrasound and genetic findings in a case series of fetuses presenting vertebral defects.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to summarize the ultrasound and genetic features in a case series of fetuses presenting vertebral defects, to provide useful information for prenatal counseling and prognostic evaluation.
methodsFetuses with vertebral anomalies by a second or third trimester ultrasound screening between January 2020 and April 2024 at a single center were included in the study. Chromosome microarray analysis (CMA) as a first-line diagnostic test was performed. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was further applied to the cases with negative CMA results.
resultsA total of 12 fetuses presenting vertebral defects were included. Isolated and non-isolated vertebral malformations were reported for eight (66.7%, 8/12) and four (33.3%, 4/12) fetuses, respectively. Congenital heart defects, microphthalmia, and duplicated kidney were among other structural anomalies associated with vertebral malformation in non-isolated cases. Of the 12 fetuses, five (41.7%) had positive results for prenatal diagnosis. CMA detected de novo 16p11.2 deletions (including the TBX6 gene) in three fetuses and a 7q36.1-q36.3 deletion in one fetus, respectively. WES followed by Sanger sequencing validation identified a novel frameshift duplication mutation TBX6 NM_004608.4: c.989_990dup p.(G331Pfs*168) in trans with the hypomorphic T-C-A haplotype (defined by SNPs rs2289292, rs3809624, and rs3809627) on the opposite allele in a fetus with a negative result for pathogenic copy number variants. There was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield between the isolated (25.0%, 2/8) and non-isolated (75%, 3/4) cases (Fisher exact test, P = 0.141). In all cases, six (50%, 6/12) had termination of pregnancy, three (25%, 3/12) had live birth with normal development at the latest follow-up, and three declined or were lost to follow-up. All live births were from cases with negative CMA and WES results.
conclusionCMA has a good performance for the diagnosis of fetuses presenting vertebral defects, and WES can further improve the diagnostic yield from the cases with negative CMA results. More studies are needed to reveal the etiologies and enhance the prenatal management of fetal vertebral defects.
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.