The DOI matches its Crossref record.
DNA Sequencing versus Standard Prenatal Aneuploidy Screening
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: In high-risk pregnant women, noninvasive prenatal testing with the use of massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA testing) accurately detects fetal autosomal aneuploidy. Its performance in low-risk women is unclear. METHODS: At 21 centers in the United States, we collected blood samples from women with singleton pregnancies who were undergoing standard aneuploidy screening (serum biochemical assays with or without nuchal translucency measurement). We performed massively parallel sequencing in a blinded fashion to determine the chromosome dosage for each sample. The primary end point was a comparison of the false positive rates of detection of fetal trisomies 21 and 18 with the use of standard screening and cfDNA testing. Birth outcomes or karyotypes were the reference standard. RESULTS: The primary series included 1914 women (mean age, 29.6 years) with an eligible sample, a singleton fetus without aneuploidy, results from cfDNA testing, and a risk classification based on standard screening. For trisomies 21 and 18, the false positive rates with cfDNA testing were significantly lower than those with standard screening (0.3% vs. 3.6% for trisomy 21, P<0.001; and 0.2% vs. 0.6% for trisomy 18, P=0.03). The use of cfDNA testing detected all cases of aneuploidy (5 for trisomy 21, 2 for trisomy 18, and 1 for trisomy 13; negative predictive value, 100% [95% confidence interval, 99.8 to 100]). The positive predictive values for cfDNA testing versus standard screening were 45.5% versus 4.2% for trisomy 21 and 40.0% versus 8.3% for trisomy 18. CONCLUSIONS: In a general obstetrical population, prenatal testing with the use of cfDNA had significantly lower false positive rates and higher positive predictive values for detection of trisomies 21 and 18 than standard screening. (Funded by Illumina; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01663350.).
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
Cited by
Antonarakis, S. E., Skotko, B. G., Rafii, M. S., Strydom, A., Pape, S. E., Bianchi, D. W., Sherman, S. L., & Reeves, R. H. (2020) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0143-7 · Cited by 964
Self-citationCell-free DNA Analysis for Noninvasive Examination of Trisomy
Norton, M. E., Jacobsson, B., Swamy, G. K., Laurent, L. C., Ranzini, A. C., Brar, H., Tomlinson, M. W., Pereira, L., Spitz, J. L., Hollemon, D., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1407349 · Cited by 817
Analysis of cell-free DNA in maternal blood in screening for aneuploidies: Updated meta-analysis
Gil, M. M., Accurti, V., Santacruz, B., Plana, M. N., & Nicolaides, K. H. (2017) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.17484 · Cited by 683
Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges
Allyse, M., Minear, M., Rote, M., Hung, A., Chandrasekharan, S., Berson, E., & Sridhar, S. (2015) · International Journal of Women's Health · doi:10.2147/ijwh.s67124 · Cited by 364
Prenatal diagnosis by chromosomal microarray analysis
Levy, B., & Wapner, R. (2018) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.005 · Cited by 341
Metadata
- Authors
- Bianchi, D. W., Parker, R. L., Wentworth, J., Madankumar, R., Saffer, C., Das, A. F., Craig, J. A., Chudova, D. I., Devers, P. L., Jones, K. W., Oliver, K., Rava, R. P., & Sehnert, A. J.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2014-02-27
- Volume
- 370
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 799-808
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2156496744
- Cited by
- 620
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 87.40
- 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: DNA Sequencing versus Standard Prenatal Aneuploidy Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1311037
- The paper
- Bianchi, D. W., Parker, R. L., Wentworth, J., Madankumar, R., Saffer, C., Das, A. F., Craig, J. A., Chudova, D. I., Devers, P. L., Jones, K. W., Oliver, K., Rava, R. P., & Sehnert, A. J. (2014). DNA Sequencing versus Standard Prenatal Aneuploidy Screening. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1311037
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.