An observational study in Prenatal Diagnosis, sponsored by YiYang Zhu. Status unknown at 1 site in China. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-06-29.
Sponsored by YiYang Zhu · Observational
This diagnostic test is aimed to compare the Karyotyping, CMA and NIPT for prenatal diagnosing chromosomal anomalies. Pregnant women who needed prenatal genetic diagnosis meted the study criterion; fetal amniotic fluid was regular examined by Karyotyping and CMA, and maternal peripheral blood was collected for NIPT detecting. And the CMA result as a golden standard, the main outcome is compared the diagnostic efficacy of NIPT for diagnosing chromosomal anomalies.
Aim: to compare the Karyotyping, CMA and NIPT for prenatal diagnosing chromosomal anomalies.
Design: diagnostic test Set: Prenatal diagnosis center of Taizhou City Study population: The Pregnant women who needed amniocenteses for prenatal genetic diagnosis were recruited.
Methods: amniotic fluid was regular examined by Karyotyping and CMA, and maternal peripheral blood was used for collected for NIPT detecting.
Statistic: CMA result as a golden standard, the main outcome is compared the diagnostic efficacy of NIPT for diagnosing chromosomal anomalies.
54 studies on the registry are indexed under Chromosome Disorders; 7 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 1,000 is above the median of 310 across 34 observational studies indexed under Chromosome Disorders.
Browse Chromosome Disorders studies →YiYang Zhu is the lead sponsor of 4 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
pregnant women who needed amniocenteses were recruited during the study period
Exclusion Criteria:
accuracy of NIPT for prenatal diagnosing chromosomal anomalies
sensitive, false negative rate, and false positive rate of NIPT compared with CMA
Time frame: July,2016-July, 2017
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is status unknown, as verified in Jun 2017. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
YiYang Zhu