↓ Skip to main content

Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003252.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zarko Alfirevic, Kate Navaratnam, Faris Mujezinovic

Abstract

During pregnancy, fetal cells suitable for genetic testing can be obtained from amniotic fluid by amniocentesis (AC), placental tissue by chorionic villus sampling (CVS), or fetal blood. A major disadvantage of second trimester amniocentesis is that the results are available relatively late in pregnancy (after 16 weeks' gestation). Earlier alternatives are chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and early amniocentesis, which can be performed in the first trimester of pregnancy. The objective of this review was to compare the safety and accuracy of all types of AC (i.e. early and late) and CVS (e.g. transabdominal, transcervical) for prenatal diagnosis. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (3 March 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 3 March 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. All randomised trials comparing AC and CVS by either transabdominal or transcervical route. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. We included a total of 16 randomised studies, with a total of 33,555 women, 14 of which were deemed to be at low risk of bias. The number of women included in the trials ranged from 223 to 4606.Studies were categorized into six comparisons: 1. second trimester AC versus control; 2. early versus second trimester AC; 3. CVS versus second trimester AC; 4. CVS methods; 5. Early AC versus CVS; and 6. AC with or without ultrasound.One study compared second trimester AC with no AC (control) in a low risk population (women = 4606). Background pregnancy loss was around 2%. Second trimester AC compared to no testing increased total pregnancy loss by another 1%. The confidence intervals (CI) around this excess risk were relatively large (3.2% versus 2.3 %, average risk ratio (RR) 1.41, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.00; moderate-quality evidence). In the same study, spontaneous miscarriages were also higher (2.1% versus 1.3%; average RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.52; high-quality evidence). The number of congenital anomalies was similar in both groups (2.0% versus 2.2%, average RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.39; moderate-quality evidence).One study (women = 4334) found that early amniocentesis was not a safe early alternative compared to second trimester amniocentesis because of increased total pregnancy losses (7.6% versus 5.9%; average RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61; high-quality evidence), spontaneous miscarriages (3.6% versus 2.5%, average RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.98; moderate-quality evidence), and a higher incidence of congential anomalies, including talipes (4.7% versus 2.7%; average RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.38; high-quality evidence).When pregnancy loss after CVS was compared with second trimester AC, there was a clinically significant heterogeneity in the size and direction of the effect depending on the technique used (transabdominal or transcervical), therefore, the results were not pooled. Only one study compared transabdominal CVS with second trimester AC (women = 2234). They found no clear difference between the two procedures in the total pregnancy loss (6.3% versus 7%; average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.23, low-quality evidence), spontaneous miscarriages (3.0% versus 3.9%; average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.21; low-quality evidence), and perinatal deaths (0.7% versus 0.6%; average RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.51; low-quality evidence). Transcervical CVS may carry a higher risk of pregnancy loss (14.5% versus 11.5%; average RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.81), but the results were quite heterogeneous.Five studies compared transabdominal and transcervical CVS (women = 7978). There were no clear differences between the two methods in pregnancy losses (average RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.65; very low-quality evidence), spontaneous miscarriages (average RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.58; very low-quality evidence), or anomalies (average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.12; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low due to heterogeneity between studies. Transcervical CVS may be more technically demanding than transabdominal CVS, with more failures to obtain sample (2.0% versus 1.1%; average RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.82, moderate-quality evidence).Overall, we found low-quality evidence for outcomes when early amniocentesis was compared to transabdominal CVS. Spontaneous miscarriage was the only outcome supported by moderate-quality evidence, resulting in more miscarriages after early AC compared with transabdominal CVS (2.3% versus 1.3%; average RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.60). There were no clear differences in pregnancy losses (average RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54; low-quality evidence), or anomalies (average RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.30; very low-quality evidence).We found one study that examined AC with or without ultrasound, which evaluated a type of ultrasound-assisted procedure that is now considered obsolete. Second trimester amniocentesis increased the risk of pregnancy loss, but it was not possible to quantify this increase precisely from only one study, carried out more than 30 years ago.Early amniocentesis was not as safe as second trimester amniocentesis, illustrated by increased pregnancy loss and congenital anomalies (talipes). Transcervical chorionic villus sampling compared with second trimester amniocentesis may be associated with a higher risk of pregnancy loss, but results were quite heterogeneous.Diagnostic accuracy of different methods could not be assessed adequately because of incomplete karyotype data in most studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 21%
Student > Master 19 20%
Researcher 12 13%
Unspecified 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Other 25 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 41%
Unspecified 15 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 12 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,212,173
of 13,434,955 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,822
of 10,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,799
of 266,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#167
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,434,955 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.