Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26496297›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2015

Diagnostic Value of Fetal Echocardiography for Congenital Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ya-Fei Zhang, Xian-Ling Zeng, En-Fa Zhao, Hong-Wei Lu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Doppler signal analysis of the tricuspid valve in healthy fetuses during the first trimester: a cohort study.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Feasibility of fetal cardiac function and anatomy assessment by real-time spiral balanced steady-state free precession magnetic resonance imaging at 0.55T.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025
    Article
  18. Improving Prenatal Detection of Congenital Heart Disease With a Scalable Composite Analysis of 6 Fetal Cardiac Ultrasound Biometrics.Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ya-Fei ZhangFrom the Department of General Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital (Y-FZ, H-WL); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Affiliated Hospital (X-LZ); and Department of Ultrasound, Second Affiliated Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, School of Medicine, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China (E-FZ).
Xian-Ling Zeng
En-Fa Zhao
Hong-Wei Lu
Creative Commons · USX-Fab (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prenatal diagnosis of fetal congenital heart disease (CHD) has been shown to have a significant effect on prenatal and postnatal management and outcomes. However, the factors influencing the diagnostic accuracy and which pregnant trimester is the most adaptive for fetal heart disease remain uncertain despite of extensive researches. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of echocardiography for detecting CHD and potential influence factors.We searched Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to identify relevant studies from January 1, 1990 to August 13, 2015.Overall, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were 68.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.8%-70.2%), 99.8% (95% CI, 99.7%-99.8%), 3026.9 (95% CI, 1417.9-6461.8), 659.41 (95% CI, 346.38-1255.3), and 0.246 (95% CI, 0.187-0.324) respectively (AUC = 0.9924). The pooled sensitivity of basic cardiac echocardiographic examination (BCEE), extended cardiac echocardiographic examination (ECEE), BCEE plus outflow tract view (BCEE + OTV), BCEE + OTV + 3VTV (BCEE plus outflow tract view plus three vessel and trachea view) for the prenatal diagnosis of CHD were 49.0%, 75.5%, 66.1%, and 83.7% respectively. The pooled sensitivity of the prenatal echocardiographic diagnosis of CHD during the first trimester, second trimester, the second to third trimester were 60.3%, 60.9%, and 77.4%, respectively. The pooled sensitivity of BCEE and ECEE for the prenatal diagnosis of CHD during the second to third trimester was significantly higher than that during the second trimester. The pooled sensitivity of the prenatal echocardiographic diagnosis of CHD for pregnancies with low risk, high risk, low and high risk, and unselected risk were 45.4%, 85.1%, 89.1%, and 66.2%, respectively. The sensitivity analysis was robust and risk level was significant source of heterogeneity. Deek test indicated no potential significant publication bias.Prenatal ultrasound is a powerful tool for the diagnosis of CHD; however, echocardiography has individual sensitivity for different gestation period, different levels of risk, and different echo-views.

Indexed as

Ultrasonography, PrenatalFemaleFetal DiseasesGestational AgeHeart Defects, CongenitalHumansPregnancyRisk FactorsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID26496297
PMCPMC4620824
OpenAlexW2331524226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.