
doi: 10.1002/pd.4125
pmid: 23592525
ABSTRACTObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate how the introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) impacted women's testing choices following a positive prenatal screening (PNS) result.MethodsBeginning in March 2012, women referred to our Prenatal Diagnosis Center following a positive PNS result were offered NIPT or invasive prenatal diagnosis. Rates of invasive testing and declining follow‐up were compared with testing decisions the prior year. Differences were compared using t‐test and chi‐square. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of test choice.ResultsBetween March 2012 and February 2013, 398 screen positive women were seen: 156 (39.2%) underwent invasive testing, 157 (39.4%) had NIPT and 84 (21.1%) declined further testing. In the prior year, 638 screen positive patients were seen: 301 (47.2%) had invasive testing and 337 (52.8%) declined. The rate of invasive testing declined significantly (p = 0.012). Moreover, fewer women declined follow‐up testing after introduction of NIPT, 21.2% versus 52.8%, p ≤ 0.001. Race/ethnicity and timing of results (first versus second trimester) were predictors of testing choices; payer and maternal age were not.ConclusionThe introduction of NIPT resulted in a significant decrease in invasive diagnostic testing. Additionally, fewer women declined further testing when NIPT was available. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Adult, Genetic Counseling, Aneuploidy, Cohort Studies, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Pregnancy, Prenatal Diagnosis, Humans, Female, Genetic Testing, Patient Participation, Follow-Up Studies, Retrospective Studies
Adult, Genetic Counseling, Aneuploidy, Cohort Studies, Pregnancy Trimester, First, Pregnancy, Prenatal Diagnosis, Humans, Female, Genetic Testing, Patient Participation, Follow-Up Studies, Retrospective Studies
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 166 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
