Literature DB >> 26158230

Is prenatal cytogenetic diagnosis with genomic array indicated in pregnancies at risk for a molecular or metabolic disorder?

Malgorzata I Srebniak1, Lutgarde C P Govaerts1, Karin E M Diderich1, Marieke Joosten1, Femke A T de Vries1, Robert-Jan H Galjaard1, Diane Van Opstal1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2015        PMID： 26158230     DOI： 10.1038/gim.2015.95

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN： 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


× No keyword cloud information.
  9 in total

1.  QF-PCR as a stand-alone test for prenatal samples: the first 2 years' experience in the London region.

Authors:  Alison Hills; Celia Donaghue; Jonathan Waters; Katie Waters; Caroline Sullivan; Abhijit Kulkarni; Zoe Docherty; Kathy Mann; Caroline Mackie Ogilvie
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.050

2.  Controversies in prenatal diagnosis 3: should everyone undergoing invasive testing have a microarray?

Authors:  John A Crolla; Ronald Wapner; Jan M M Van Lith
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Benefits and burdens of using a SNP array in pregnancies at increased risk for the common aneuploidies.

Authors:  Diane Van Opstal; Femke de Vries; Lutgarde Govaerts; Marjan Boter; Debora Lont; Stefanie van Veen; Marieke Joosten; Karin Diderich; Robert-Jan Galjaard; Malgorzata I Srebniak
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.878

4.  0.5 Mb array as a first-line prenatal cytogenetic test in cases without ultrasound abnormalities and its implementation in clinical practice.

Authors:  Malgorzata I Srebniak; Lisanne Mout; Diane Van Opstal; Robert-Jan H Galjaard
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 4.878

5.  Pregnant couples at increased risk for common aneuploidies choose maximal information from invasive genetic testing.

Authors:  S L van der Steen; K E M Diderich; S R Riedijk; J Verhagen-Visser; L C P Govaerts; M Joosten; M F C M Knapen; D Van Opstal; M I Srebniak; A Tibben; R J H Galjaard
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 4.438

6.  Chromosomal microarray versus karyotyping for prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  Ronald J Wapner; Christa Lese Martin; Brynn Levy; Blake C Ballif; Christine M Eng; Julia M Zachary; Melissa Savage; Lawrence D Platt; Daniel Saltzman; William A Grobman; Susan Klugman; Thomas Scholl; Joe Leigh Simpson; Kimberly McCall; Vimla S Aggarwal; Brian Bunke; Odelia Nahum; Ankita Patel; Allen N Lamb; Elizabeth A Thom; Arthur L Beaudet; David H Ledbetter; Lisa G Shaffer; Laird Jackson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Prenatal diagnosis using combined quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction and array comparative genomic hybridization analysis as a first-line test: results from over 1000 consecutive cases.

Authors:  F Scott; K Murphy; L Carey; W Greville; N Mansfield; P Barahona; R Robertson; A McLennan
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 7.299

8.  ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 88, December 2007. Invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Is routine karyotyping required in prenatal samples with a molecular or metabolic referral?

Authors:  Angelique Ja Kooper; Jacqueline Jpm Pieters; Brigitte Hw Faas; Lies H Hoefsloot; Ineke van der Burgt; Hans A Zondervan; Arie Pt Smits
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 2.009
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.