We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Review
Diagnostic yield of prenatal exome sequencing in the genetic screening of fetuses with brain anomalies detected by MRI and ultrasonography: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BJOG : An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2023 November 7
BACKGROUND: Brain anomalies (BAs) have been the focus of research, as they have a high impact on fetal health but therapeutic and diagnostic approaches are limited.
OBJECTIVES: In this study, the application and efficiency of exome sequencing (ES) in detecting different cases of BAs in fetuses were evaluated and compared with chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA).
SEARCH STRATEGY: To conduct this study, three databases including PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were utilised with the keywords 'prenatal', 'diagnoses', 'brain anomalies' and 'exome sequencing'.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included based on the STARD checklist, for which the ES and CMA diagnostic yields were calculated.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Meta-analysis was performed on the included studies using a random-effects model and subgroup analysis to define the risk difference between them.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies representing 779 fetuses that implemented ES along with imaging techniques. The pooled ES diagnostic yield in fetuses with BAs detected through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography was 26.53%, compared with 3.46% for CMA. The risk difference between ES and CMA for complex BAs was 0.36 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.47], which was higher than for single BAs (0.22; 95% CI 0.18-0.25].
CONCLUSIONS: ES is a useful method with a significantly higher diagnostic yield than CMA for genetic assessment of fetuses with complex BAs detected by imaging techniques. Moreover, ES could be applied to suspected fetuses with related family histories to predict congenital diseases with high efficiency.
OBJECTIVES: In this study, the application and efficiency of exome sequencing (ES) in detecting different cases of BAs in fetuses were evaluated and compared with chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA).
SEARCH STRATEGY: To conduct this study, three databases including PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were utilised with the keywords 'prenatal', 'diagnoses', 'brain anomalies' and 'exome sequencing'.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included based on the STARD checklist, for which the ES and CMA diagnostic yields were calculated.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Meta-analysis was performed on the included studies using a random-effects model and subgroup analysis to define the risk difference between them.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies representing 779 fetuses that implemented ES along with imaging techniques. The pooled ES diagnostic yield in fetuses with BAs detected through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography was 26.53%, compared with 3.46% for CMA. The risk difference between ES and CMA for complex BAs was 0.36 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.47], which was higher than for single BAs (0.22; 95% CI 0.18-0.25].
CONCLUSIONS: ES is a useful method with a significantly higher diagnostic yield than CMA for genetic assessment of fetuses with complex BAs detected by imaging techniques. Moreover, ES could be applied to suspected fetuses with related family histories to predict congenital diseases with high efficiency.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System: From History to Practice of a Secular Topic.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 5
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 March 27
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app