The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Non‐invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: current status and future prospects
Open accessAbstract
Non‐invasive prenatal testing ( NIPT ) for aneuploidy using cell‐free DNA in maternal plasma is revolutionizing prenatal screening and diagnosis. We review NIPT in the context of established screening and invasive technologies, the range of cytogenetic abnormalities detectable, cost, counseling and ethical issues. Current NIPT approaches involve whole‐genome sequencing, targeted sequencing and assessment of single nucleotide polymorphism ( SNP ) differences between mother and fetus. Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of NIPT for Down and Edwards syndromes, and possibly Patau syndrome, in high‐risk women. Universal NIPT is not cost‐effective, but using NIPT contingently in women found at moderate or high risk by conventional screening is cost‐effective. Positive NIPT results must be confirmed using invasive techniques. Established screening, fetal ultrasound and invasive procedures with microarray testing allow the detection of a broad range of additional abnormalities not yet detectable by NIPT . NIPT approaches that take advantage of SNP information potentially allow the identification of parent of origin for imbalances, triploidy, uniparental disomy and consanguinity, and separate evaluation of dizygotic twins. Fetal fraction enrichment, improved sequencing and selected analysis of the most informative sequences should result in tests for additional chromosomal abnormalities. Providing adequate prenatal counseling poses a substantial challenge given the broad range of prenatal testing options now available. Copyright © 2013 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd .
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis
Wapner, R. J., Martin, C. L., Levy, B., Ballif, B. C., Eng, C. M., Zachary, J. M., Savage, M., Platt, L. D., Saltzman, D., Grobman, W. A., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1203382 · Cited by 1,412
Noninvasive Fetal Sex Determination Using Cell-Free Fetal DNA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Devaney, S. A., Palomaki, G. E., Scott, J. A., & Bianchi, D. W. (2011) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1114 · Cited by 247
Fan, H. C., & Quake, S. R. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010439 · Cited by 141
Wegrzyn, P., Faro, C., Falcon, O., Peralta, C. F. A., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2005) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.1923 · Cited by 103
Cited by
on behalf of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) and the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), Dondorp, W., de Wert, G., Bombard, Y., Bianchi, D. W., Bergmann, C., Borry, P., Chitty, L. S., Fellmann, F., Forzano, F., et al. (2015) · European Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.57 · Cited by 349
Benn, P., Borrell, A., Chiu, R. W. K., Cuckle, H., Dugoff, L., Faas, B., Gross, S., Huang, T., Johnson, J., Maymon, R., et al. (2015) · Prenatal Diagnosis · doi:10.1002/pd.4608 · Cited by 292
Self-citationPergament, E., Cuckle, H., Zimmermann, B., Banjevic, M., Sigurjonsson, S., Ryan, A., Hall, M. P., Dodd, M., Lacroute, P., Stosic, M., et al. (2014) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000000363 · Cited by 284
Self-citationVanstone, M., Yacoub, K., Giacomini, M., Hulan, D., & McDonald, S. (2015) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732315589745 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Benn, P., Cuckle, H., & Pergament, E.
- Venue
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-06-24
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 15-33
- ISSN
- 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0705
- OpenAlex
- W1638606089
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 45.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Non‐invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: current status and future prospects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/uog.12513
- The paper
- Benn, P., Cuckle, H., & Pergament, E. (2013). Non‐invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy: current status and future prospects. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.12513
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.