Cargando…

Two kinds of common prenatal screening tests for Down’s syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

As the chromosomal examination of foetal cells for the prenatal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome (DS) carries a risk of inducing miscarriage, serum screening tests are commonly used before invasive procedures. In this study, a total of 374 records from PubMed, EMBASE, and the ISI Science Citation Index...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yao, Yuan, Liao, Yang, Han, Mei, Li, Sheng-Lan, Luo, Juan, Zhang, Bo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4702166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26732706
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep18866
_version_ 1782408600581308416
author Yao, Yuan
Liao, Yang
Han, Mei
Li, Sheng-Lan
Luo, Juan
Zhang, Bo
author_facet Yao, Yuan
Liao, Yang
Han, Mei
Li, Sheng-Lan
Luo, Juan
Zhang, Bo
author_sort Yao, Yuan
collection PubMed
description As the chromosomal examination of foetal cells for the prenatal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome (DS) carries a risk of inducing miscarriage, serum screening tests are commonly used before invasive procedures. In this study, a total of 374 records from PubMed, EMBASE, and the ISI Science Citation Index databases were reviewed. As a result of duplication, insufficient data, and inappropriate article types, 18 independent articles containing 183,998 samples were used in the final systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of the serum triple screening test (STS) and the integrated screening test (INS). Data extracted from the selected studies were statistically analysed, and the presence of heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using specific software. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and the area under the curve for the STS were 0.77 (95% confidence interval = 0.73–0.81), 0.94 (0.94–0.94), 9.78 (6.87–13.93), 0.26 (0.22–0.31), 44.72 (30.77–65.01), and 0.9064, respectively. For the INS, these values were 0.93 (0.90–0.95), 0.93 (0.93–0.93), 22.38 (12.47–40.14), 0.08 (0.05–0.11), 289.81 (169.08–496.76), and 0.9781, respectively. These results indicate that the INS exhibits better diagnostic value for DS. However, further research is needed to identify other biomarkers to improve prenatal screening tests.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4702166
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47021662016-01-14 Two kinds of common prenatal screening tests for Down’s syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis Yao, Yuan Liao, Yang Han, Mei Li, Sheng-Lan Luo, Juan Zhang, Bo Sci Rep Article As the chromosomal examination of foetal cells for the prenatal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome (DS) carries a risk of inducing miscarriage, serum screening tests are commonly used before invasive procedures. In this study, a total of 374 records from PubMed, EMBASE, and the ISI Science Citation Index databases were reviewed. As a result of duplication, insufficient data, and inappropriate article types, 18 independent articles containing 183,998 samples were used in the final systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of the serum triple screening test (STS) and the integrated screening test (INS). Data extracted from the selected studies were statistically analysed, and the presence of heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using specific software. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and the area under the curve for the STS were 0.77 (95% confidence interval = 0.73–0.81), 0.94 (0.94–0.94), 9.78 (6.87–13.93), 0.26 (0.22–0.31), 44.72 (30.77–65.01), and 0.9064, respectively. For the INS, these values were 0.93 (0.90–0.95), 0.93 (0.93–0.93), 22.38 (12.47–40.14), 0.08 (0.05–0.11), 289.81 (169.08–496.76), and 0.9781, respectively. These results indicate that the INS exhibits better diagnostic value for DS. However, further research is needed to identify other biomarkers to improve prenatal screening tests. Nature Publishing Group 2016-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4702166/ /pubmed/26732706 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep18866 Text en Copyright © 2016, Macmillan Publishers Limited http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Article
Yao, Yuan
Liao, Yang
Han, Mei
Li, Sheng-Lan
Luo, Juan
Zhang, Bo
Two kinds of common prenatal screening tests for Down’s syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Two kinds of common prenatal screening tests for Down’s syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Two kinds of common prenatal screening tests for Down’s syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Two kinds of common prenatal screening tests for Down’s syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Two kinds of common prenatal screening tests for Down’s syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Two kinds of common prenatal screening tests for Down’s syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort two kinds of common prenatal screening tests for down’s syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4702166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26732706
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep18866
work_keys_str_mv AT yaoyuan twokindsofcommonprenatalscreeningtestsfordownssyndromeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liaoyang twokindsofcommonprenatalscreeningtestsfordownssyndromeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hanmei twokindsofcommonprenatalscreeningtestsfordownssyndromeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lishenglan twokindsofcommonprenatalscreeningtestsfordownssyndromeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT luojuan twokindsofcommonprenatalscreeningtestsfordownssyndromeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhangbo twokindsofcommonprenatalscreeningtestsfordownssyndromeasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis