ArticleChild's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery2017
A comparison of the MOMS trial results to a contemporaneous, single-institution, postnatal closure cohort.
Article in Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical challenges in conducting maternal-fetal surgery trials. A systematic review.Pediatric research · 2025Pooled it
- Myelomeningocele Surgery over the 10 Years Following the MOMS Trial: A Systematic Review of Outcomes in Prenatal versus Postnatal Surgical Repair.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical Trial Generalizability Assessment in the Big Data Era: A Review.Clinical and translational science · 2020Pooled it
- Outcomes of Postnatal Myelomeningocele Repair in a Japanese Single-center Cohort: A Comparison with the Management of Myelomeningocele Study Trial.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2026Article
- Impact of surgical timing and concomitant anomalies on neonatal meningomyelocele outcomes: a single-center experience.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Concurrent myelomeningocele and sagittal craniosynostosis: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2025Article
- What has changed in pediatric neurosurgical care in spina bifida? A 30-year UAB/Children's of Alabama observational overview.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2023Article
- Long-term neurological cognitive, behavioral, functional, and quality of life outcomes after fetal myelomeningocele closure: a systematic review.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2023Article
- Postnatal Repair of Open Neural Tube Defects: A Single Center with 90-Month Interdisciplinary Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Treated hydrocephalus in individuals with myelomeningocele in the National Spina Bifida Patient Registry.Journal of neurosurgery. Pediatrics · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe evaluate a single-institution cohort of mothers contemporaneous with the Management of Myelomeningocele Study (MOMS) trial to determine the generalizability of MOMS results and compare shunt rates.
methodsA retrospective chart review identified patients with myelomeningocele born between 2003 and 2009. We applied MOMS eligibility criteria and compared sociodemographic variables between patients at our institution who would have been eligible or ineligible and MOMS participants. Finally, we applied the original MOMS primary outcome and the revised primary outcome to our cohort.
resultsOf the 78 patients, 55 (70.5%) were eligible for the MOMS trial. Mean maternal age, race, and marital status were different from both MOMS groups. Comparing our series to MOMS postnatal shows fewer female infants (44.9 vs. 63.8%, p = 0.017) and more thoracic lesions (12.8 vs. 3.8%, p = 0.038). Shunt rates in our cohort (84.6%) were higher than MOMS prenatal and similar to MOMS postnatal (44.0 and 83.7%, respectively). Fewer children met the original primary outcome than the postnatal group (84.6 vs. 97.8%, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference between our cohort and the prenatal group (84.6 vs. 72.5%, p = 0.058). When applying the revised criteria, we find the opposite: a significant difference between local and MOMS prenatal (84.6 vs. 49.5%, p < 0.001) but no difference between the local group and MOMS postnatal (84.6 vs. 87.0%, p = 0.662).
conclusionsMothers in our cohort differ from mothers enrolled in MOMS via several sociodemographic factors. Baseline fetal characteristics show a significantly higher functional lesion level in between our cohort and MOMS. Treatment of hydrocephalus in our series tracks almost identically with original MOMS shunt criteria. Revision of the criteria led to greater concordance between meeting criteria and receiving a shunt in MOMS patients, but changes the results in our series.
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.