2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.09.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cell-free fetal DNA and adverse outcome in low risk pregnancies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
25
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
3
25
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Crowley et al [34] did not find increased cffDNA levels before 20 weeks of gestation, and Bauer et al's results were inconclusive [35]. Stein et al [36] also reported no alterations of cffDNA levels in the second trimester in pregnancies with PE. In the present study, the median levels and MoM values of cffDNA ( DSCR3 and RASSF1A genes) at 6-14 and 15-23 weeks were not significantly different between the PE and control groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Crowley et al [34] did not find increased cffDNA levels before 20 weeks of gestation, and Bauer et al's results were inconclusive [35]. Stein et al [36] also reported no alterations of cffDNA levels in the second trimester in pregnancies with PE. In the present study, the median levels and MoM values of cffDNA ( DSCR3 and RASSF1A genes) at 6-14 and 15-23 weeks were not significantly different between the PE and control groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Second trimester cell-free fetal DNA levels in the maternal circulation have been evaluated as a screening tool in asymptomatic, low risk pregnancies to identify patients that may be at higher risk of developing complications. While some studies have found these levels useful in predicting patients that will develop preterm delivery [28] and preeclampsia [27, 37], others have not [38]. …”
Section: Pregnancymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there can be technical confounders in the quantification of cfDNA, including storage conditions or processing delay before plasma separation [14][16], DNA extraction method [17]–[20], amplicon size and target gene choice [21][23]. Moreover, there are no generally accepted units of measure for cfDNA quantification; in the literature data are presented in genome equivalents per mL of plasma (GE/mL) [21], [24]–[27] or its logged equivalent [27], median C T [28], [29], percent value to total cfDNA [30], [31] or multiple of median (MoM) [11]. This inconsistency complicates the data analysis, comparability and reproducibility of the tests.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%