Əsas səhifə

Çap

Əks əlaqə

İnfo
Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive fetal Rh genotyping from maternal blood

Mündəricat

Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive fetal Rh genotyping from maternal blood

Sübutlu məlumatların xülasələri
29.11.2012 • Sonuncu dəyişiklik 29.11.2012
Editors

Noninvasive foetal DNA determination of Rh genotype based on maternal peripheral blood may be highly accurate, especially in the first trimester.

A systematic review including 44 studies with a total of 3261 samples was abstracted in DARE. Overall accuracy was 2980 samples out of 3261 (91.4%). Individual study estimates of accuracy ranged from 31.8 to 100%. After the exclusion of small studies and unsuitable samples, accuracy was 2919/3078 (94.8%). The pooled sensitivity was 95.4% (95% CI 90.6 to 97.8) and the pooled specificity 98.6% (95% CI 96.4 to 99.5). Accuracy was higher in the first trimester (90.8%, 218/240) than in the second (85.0%, 350/421) or third trimesters (85.3%, 232/272); p=0.041. Studies using free DNA reporting significantly greater accuracy than DNA or RNA from foetal cells. The greatest accuracy was obtained using free DNA in maternal plasma (2293/2377 samples; 96.5%, 95% CI 95.6 to 97.2) and free DNA from maternal serum (394/410 samples; 96.1%, 95% CI 84.1 to 96.2). The accuracy of free foetal DNA in maternal blood was lower (90/98 samples; 91.8%, 95% CI 84.1 to 96.2). The use of DNA or RNA from foetal cells in maternal blood showed poorer accuracy: 42 samples out of 62 (67.7%, 95% CI: 54.5, 78.7) and 100 samples out of 131 (76.3%, 95% CI: 68.0, 83.1), respectively. Alloimmunisation had no effect on accuracy: foetal Rh type was correctly diagnosed in 719 (91.8%) of the 783 alloimmunised patients.

Comment: The quality of evidence is downgraded by review quality (limited data about the individual studies and review process) and by inconsistency (heterogeneity was not formally assessed).

Ədəbiyyat

  1. Geifman-Holtzman O, Grotegut CA, Gaughan JP. Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive fetal Rh genotyping from maternal blood: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006;195(4):1163-1173.