Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28213626›Full record

ArticlePediatric radiology2017

Effectiveness of screening for craniosynostosis with ultrasound: a retrospective review.

Kent M Hall, David A Besachio, Matthew D Moore, Adrian J Mora, William R Carter

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Sutures ultrasound: useful diagnostic screening for posterior plagiocephaly.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Postnatal diagnosis of single-suture craniosynostosis with cranial ultrasound: a systematic review.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Imaging in craniosynostosis: when and what?Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2019
    Review
  6. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kent M HallNaval Medical Center Portsmouth, 620 John Paul Jones Circle, Portsmouth, VA, 23708, USA. hallkenm@gmail.com.
David A BesachioNaval Medical Center Portsmouth, 620 John Paul Jones Circle, Portsmouth, VA, 23708, USA.
Matthew D MooreNaval Medical Center Portsmouth, 620 John Paul Jones Circle, Portsmouth, VA, 23708, USA.
Adrian J MoraNaval Medical Center Portsmouth, 620 John Paul Jones Circle, Portsmouth, VA, 23708, USA.
William R CarterNaval Medical Center Portsmouth, 620 John Paul Jones Circle, Portsmouth, VA, 23708, USA.
Naval Medical Center Portsmouth · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimizing the ionizing radiation dose to children is fundamental to pediatric radiology. The most widely accepted imaging examination for evaluating craniosynostosis is computed tomography (CT) of the head, an examination that involves ionizing radiation.

objectiveTo determine if sonography of the cranial sutures is an adequate screening examination for the diagnosis of craniosynostosis in patients with abnormal skull shape. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective review of all cranial suture ultrasound (US) examinations performed during the course of a 3-year period (July 2012 - September 2015) was undertaken. Results were compared with clinical follow-up and/or head CT to evaluate the accuracy of this modality as a screening tool to determine the presence or absence of craniosynostosis. Fifty-two sonographic exams were adequate for inclusion.

resultsForty-five of the examinations did not reveal synostosis. In each of these instances, follow-up physical exam findings and/or CT imaging confirmed that no abnormal premature suture closure was present. US findings demonstrated synostosis in seven cases. CT exam or operative reports of these cases confirmed all seven findings of premature suture closure. Statistical analysis demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 56.1-100.0%), a specificity of 100% (95% CI: 90.2-100.0%), and a negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI: 90.2-100.0%).

conclusionCranial US is a reliable screening tool to rule out craniosynostosis in patients with abnormal head shape.

Indexed as

Cranial SuturesCraniosynostosesHumansInfantReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyChildrenCranial suturesCraniosynostosisPlagiocephalySkullUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID28213626
OpenAlexW2588912430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.