English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) in screening for copy number variations (CNVs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by combining our study results with those reported in other articles. We retrospectively collected the data of pregnant women with NIPS testing in the Hangzhou Women’s Hospital from December 2019 to February 2022. Simultaneously, a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science was carried out to identify all relevant peer-reviewed publications. Statistical analysis was performed based on the random-effects model to determine a pooled estimate of the positive predictive value (PPV). A total of 29 studies involving 2,667 women were included for analysis. The pooled PPV of NIPS in the detection of CNVs was 32.86% (95% confidence interval [24.61–41.64]). Statistical heterogeneity was high, while no significant publication bias was found in this meta-analysis. There were insufficient data to accurately determine sensitivity and specificity, as most studies only performed confirmatory tests on high-risk women. The PPV of NIPS in screening for CNVs was approximately 33%. Cautions should be kept in mind for the pretest guidance and subsequent after-test counseling when offering such genome-wide NIPS tests.

The predictive value of noninvasive prenatal screening for copy number variations: a cohort study and a systematic meta-analysis