Literature DB >> 15866080

How unexpected are unexpected findings in prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis? A literature review.

Myra C B van Zwieten1, Dick L Willems, Liesbeth L Litjens, Heleen G Schuring-Blom, Nico Leschot.   

Abstract

The objective of this review was to gain understanding about unexpected findings in prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis. This category of results might be excluded from prenatal testing when new molecular tests such as I-FISH and QF-PCR will be applied in a future scenario of targeted testing. The literature was systematically searched for publications wherein the term unexpected or a synonym refers to testing results with specific problems. On the selected articles a qualitative analysis was performed, using the methods of cross-case analysis and within-case analysis. Sixteen articles published between 1979 and 2003 were selected. Analysis led to the classification of four problems of unexpected findings: I. unexpected for professionals; II. unexpected for patients; III. uncertainty; IV. other difficult counselling issues. We conclude that currently the problems of unexpected findings relate only slightly to their unexpected character. Instead, the main problems of unexpected findings relate to uncertainty and other aspects which create difficult counselling issues. As such, unexpected findings can be distinguished only gradually from standard results. Before targeted testing can be applied it is necessary to establish exact criteria in order to discern unexpected findings from standard testing results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15866080     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.10.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol        ISSN: 0301-2115            Impact factor:   2.435


  4 in total

1.  Economic evaluation of multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a cost-minimization analysis.

Authors:  Elisabeth M A Boormans; Erwin Birnie; Mariëtte J V Hoffer; Merryn V E Macville; Robert-Jan Galjaard; Gijsbertha H Schuring-Blom; Shama L Bhola; Karin Huijsdens; Arie Smits; Jan M M van Lith
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2011-05-19       Impact factor: 2.344

2.  Why do parents prefer to know the fetal sex as part of invasive prenatal testing?

Authors:  Angelique J A Kooper; Jacqueline J P M Pieters; Alex J Eggink; Ton B Feuth; Ilse Feenstra; Lia D E Wijnberger; Robbert J P Rijnders; Rik W P Quartero; Peter F Boekkooi; John M G van Vugt; Arie P T Smits
Journal:  ISRN Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-12-12

3.  Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification versus karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: the M.A.K.E. study.

Authors:  Elisabeth M A Boormans; Erwin Birnie; Hajo I Wildschut; Heleen G Schuring-Blom; Dick Oepkes; Carla A C van Oppen; Jan G Nijhuis; Merryn V E Macville; Angelique J A Kooper; Karin Huijsdens; Mariëtte V J Hoffer; Attie Go; Johan Creemers; Shama L Bhola; Katia M Bilardo; Ron Suijkerbuijk; Katelijne Bouman; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Gouke J Bonsel; Jan Mm van Lith
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 3.007

4.  Can we rely on the multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification method (MLPA) for prenatal diagnosis?

Authors:  Mir Davood Omrani; Faezeh Azizi; Masoumeh Rajabibazl; Niloufar Safavi Naini; Sara Omrani; Arezo Mona Abbasi; Soraya Saleh Gargari
Journal:  Iran J Reprod Med       Date:  2014-04
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.