↓ Skip to main content

How do the trends in the prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidy change after a non-invasive prenatal test becomes available? A Japanese single center study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Ultrasonics, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
How do the trends in the prenatal diagnosis of aneuploidy change after a non-invasive prenatal test becomes available? A Japanese single center study
Published in
Journal of Medical Ultrasonics, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10396-014-0589-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Junichi Hasegawa, Masamitsu Nakamura, Akihiko Sekizawa

Abstract

To clarify the trends in the use of the prenatal diagnosis of and screening for aneuploidy after a non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) was made available at a single Japanese hospital. The subjects included consecutive pregnant females who visited our hospital for maternal checkups and delivery between January 2012 and April 2014. After the subjects were divided into those who desired a prenatal diagnosis or screening before the availability of NIPT and those who did after the availability of NIPT, the frequencies of various prenatal diagnosis and screening procedures were compared between the two groups. A total of 544 patients who visited the hospital before NIPT was available and 703 who visited the hospital after NIPT became available were analyzed. While only 16.2 % of pregnant females received a prenatal diagnosis or screening before the NIPT was available, 27.5 % of them considered undergoing a prenatal diagnosis or screening after the NIPT was available before genetic counseling, and 24.0 % ultimately received a prenatal diagnosis or screening following genetic counseling. Of these patients, 7.7 % underwent NIPT. First trimester ultrasound screening for chromosomal abnormalities was unlikely to be selected (from 12.9 to 10.5 %, p = 0.212), although the rate of amniocentesis significantly increased after genetic counseling (from 1.5 to 3.7 %, p = 0.021). Since NIPT became available in 2013, pregnant females have demonstrated a deep interest in obtaining a prenatal diagnosis and screening. Whereas some patients choose to forgo a screening after receiving genetic counseling, others prefer invasive diagnostic tests in contrast to screening.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 36%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 18%
Professor 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 64%
Unspecified 2 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Philosophy 1 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 November 2014.
All research outputs
#8,163,365
of 13,017,830 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Ultrasonics
#29
of 69 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,504
of 294,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Ultrasonics
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,017,830 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 69 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 294,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.