Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Version of Record online: 23 JUL 2010
Copyright © 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 37, Issue 1, pages 6–14, January 2011
How to Cite
Hillman, S. C., Pretlove, S., Coomarasamy, A., Mcmullan, D. J., Davison, E. V., Maher, E. R. and Kilby, M. D. (2011), Additional information from array comparative genomic hybridization technology over conventional karyotyping in prenatal diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 37: 6–14. doi: 10.1002/uog.7754
- Issue online: 22 DEC 2010
- Version of Record online: 23 JUL 2010
- Accepted manuscript online: 23 JUL 2010 12:00AM EST
- Manuscript Accepted: 19 JUL 2010
- 62001., , , , . Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness. CRD's Guidance for Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews (2nd edn). CRD Report No. 4. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University of York: York,
- 7Identifying and selecting studies for inclusion. In PDQ Evidence-Based Principles and Practice. BC Decker Inc.: Hamilton, Canada, 1999; 125–127., , .
- 8Frequency and rate. In Systematic Reviews in Health Care: A practical guide (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001; 67–73., , , .
- 9Whole-genome microarray analysis in prenatal specimens identifies clinically significant chromosome alterations without increase in results of unclear significance compared to targeted microarray. Prenat Diagn 2009; 29: 1156–1166., , , , , .