ReviewJapanese journal of radiology2018
Ultrasound imaging of the anorectal malformation during the neonatal period: a comprehensive review.
Review in Japanese journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of preoperative ultrasonography with the bowel function at 5 years of age in low-type anorectal malformation: a retrospective cohort study.Surgery today · 2026Article
- [Developmental disorders of the gastrointestinal tract].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Ultrasonic Diagnosis of Intestinal Obstruction in Neonates-Original Article.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The role of ultrasound to evaluate the disorders of sex development: a pictorial essay.Journal of ultrasound · 2022Article
- Accuracy of pre-operative fistula diagnostics in anorectal malformations.BMC pediatrics · 2021Article
- Comparison of sonographic findings between pediatric patients with mediastinitis and without mediastinitis after cardiovascular surgery.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2020Article
- Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for fistulae at ultrasound and voiding cystourethrogram in neonates with anorectal malformation.Pediatric radiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anorectal malformation (ARM) is classified as low, intermediate, or high; accurate diagnosis of the type during the early neonatal period is important to determine the appropriate initial surgical approach. This review assesses the role of ultrasound examination in the classification of ARM during the neonatal period, with a focus on landmarks on the sonogram, the approach used for sonography, and the optimal examination timing. The following three factors on the sonogram are used for the classification: location of the fistula, the distance between the distal rectal pouch and the anal dimple (perineum) (P-P distance), and the relationship between the puborectalis muscle and the distal rectal pouch. Three approaches can be used to evaluate ARM by ultrasonography, namely, suprapubic, perineal, and infracoccygeal approaches. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. Optimal timing of the ultrasound examination is also important with respect to each factor to classify ARM. We have described the pitfalls of ultrasound in diagnosis of cases, namely ARM with Down syndrome (which tends to be without fistula), ARM with low birth weight, ARM with unusual location of fistula, ARM with opened fistula (where the P-P distance is unreliable), and cloacal malformation (variation of the high-type ARM).
Indexed as
Identifiers
30120703What 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.