ArticleLa Radiologia medica2016
Fetal MRI versus postnatal imaging in the MR-compatible incubator.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Prenatal Neurosonography in Identification of Tubulinopathy-Narrative Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Prenatal phenotyping of fetal tubulinopathies: A multicenter retrospective case series.Prenatal diagnosis · 2022Review
- CNS Malformations in the Newborn.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2022Review
- Seventeen years of prenatal magnetic resonance imaging at the Institute of Mother and Child in Warsaw.Polish journal of radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOne of the aims of fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is to avoid postnatal scanning. However, clinicians sometimes wish to have postnatal confirmation of prenatal findings. This study's purpose was to check whether there was indeed the added value of neonatal MRI performed in the MR-compatible incubator (INC) after fetal examination. MATERIALS AND
methodsMaterial consists of 25 neonates (14 girls) who underwent prenatal and postnatal MRI in a 1.5 T scanner, the latter in INC. Mean time of prenatal MRI was 30th gestational week, of postnatal MRI-16th day of life.
resultsIn 14 cases (56 %) postnatal findings were the same as prenatal ones. In 11 (44 %) postnatal MRI showed some different/new/more precise results, in two the differences were attributed to other factors than the advantage of postnatal MRI over prenatal one. Altogether then postnatal results were partly discordant with prenatal ones in 9/25 cases (36 %).
conclusionsIn most cases there was no added value of postnatal MRI as compared to prenatal one. This value lied in small details that could not have been noticed on prenatal MRI or required contrast medium administration to be noticed. On the other hand, MR examination performed with use of the dedicated neonatal coils in the MR-compatible incubator is a safe and reliable method of visualization of these small details with better spatial resolution thus helping to establish final diagnosis, treatment plan and prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.