Table 1. Comparison of CMA detection rates in prospective prenatal studies.
| Reference | No. of prenatal samples analyzed | No. of clinically significant submicroscopic aberrations (%) | No. of CNVs of unclear significance (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sahoo et al17 | 98 | 0 (0.0) | 2 (2.0) |
| Shaffer et al18 | 151 | 2 (1.3) | 1 (0.7) |
| Kleeman et al21 | 50 | 1 (2.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Coppinger et al22 | 244 | 5 (2.0) | 1 (0.4) |
| Van de Veyver et al23 | 300 | 2 (0.7) | 3 (1.0) |
| Maya et al24 | 269 | 3 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| Park et al27 | 4.033 | 11 (0.3) | NR |
| Armengol et al28 | 906 | 14 (1.5) | 6 (0.7)a |
| Lee et al29 | 3.171 | 34 (1.1) | 5 (0.2) |
| Breman et al30 | 1.115 | 25 (2.2) | 18 (1.6) |
| Current study | 3.000 | 24 (0.8) | 1 (0.03) |
| Total | 13.337 | 121 (0.9) | 37 (0.3) |
a
only not inherited CNVs are taken into consideration.