Cited by 1,412Prenatal Screening and DiagnosticsGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesGenomics and Rare Diseases

Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis

Open access
Wapner, Ronald J., Martin, Christa Lese, Levy, Brynn, Ballif, Blake C., Eng, Christine M., Zachary, Julia M., Savage, Melissa, Platt, Lawrence D. +16 more·2012·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Chromosomal microarray analysis has emerged as a primary diagnostic tool for the evaluation of developmental delay and structural malformations in children. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy, efficacy, and incremental yield of chromosomal microarray analysis as compared with karyotyping for routine prenatal diagnosis. METHODS: Samples from women undergoing prenatal diagnosis at 29 centers were sent to a central karyotyping laboratory. Each sample was split in two; standard karyotyping was performed on one portion and the other was sent to one of four laboratories for chromosomal microarray. RESULTS: We enrolled a total of 4406 women. Indications for prenatal diagnosis were advanced maternal age (46.6%), abnormal result on Down's syndrome screening (18.8%), structural anomalies on ultrasonography (25.2%), and other indications (9.4%). In 4340 (98.8%) of the fetal samples, microarray analysis was successful; 87.9% of samples could be used without tissue culture. Microarray analysis of the 4282 nonmosaic samples identified all the aneuploidies and unbalanced rearrangements identified on karyotyping but did not identify balanced translocations and fetal triploidy. In samples with a normal karyotype, microarray analysis revealed clinically relevant deletions or duplications in 6.0% with a structural anomaly and in 1.7% of those whose indications were advanced maternal age or positive screening results. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of prenatal diagnostic testing, chromosomal microarray analysis identified additional, clinically significant cytogenetic information as compared with karyotyping and was equally efficacious in identifying aneuploidies and unbalanced rearrangements but did not identify balanced translocations and triploidies. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01279733.).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1203382

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
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., Klugman, S., Scholl, T., Simpson, J. L., McCall, K., Aggarwal, V. S., Bunke, B., Nahum, O., Patel, A., Lamb, A. N., Thom, E. A., Beaudet, A. L., Ledbetter, D. H., Shaffer, L. G., & Jackson, L.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Genome Canada (CA)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
  • Sequenom (United States) (US)
  • Florida International University (US)
  • Drexel University (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2012-12-06
Volume
367
Issue
23
Pages
2175-2184
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2144967747
Cited by
1,412
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 85 · 2024: 113 · 2023: 118 · 2022: 131 · 2021: 111 · 2020: 99 · 2019: 103 · 2018: 144 · 2017: 94 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 88 · 2014: 103 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 3
FWCI
73.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000150)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (RC2HD064525, R01HD055651)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
chromosomal microarray analysis, karyology, prenatal diagnosis, fetal aneuploidy, unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements, balanced translocation, Down syndrome screening, advanced maternal age, structural anomalies, diagnostic yield
MeSH terms
Adult, Chromosome Aberrations, Chromosomes, Human, Down Syndrome, Female, Fetal Diseases, Genetic Testing, Humans, Karyotyping, Maternal Age, Pregnancy, Prenatal Diagnosis, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Chromosome Disorders, Karyotype

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