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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |