Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30657135›Full record

ReviewPaediatrics & child health2018

Imaging the term neonatal brain.

S Todd Sorokan, Ann L Jefferies, Steven P Miller

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Paediatrics & child health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. MRI scoring systems in neonatal encephalopathy and neurodevelopmental outcomes: a systematic review.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Subgaleal hemorrhage in neonates: a comprehensive review and summary recommendations.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Human parechovirus meningoencephalitis.SA journal of radiology · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Clinical experience with an in-NICU magnetic resonance imaging system.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2022
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Modern pulmonary imaging of bronchopulmonary dysplasia.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021
    Review
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

3 authors.

S Todd SorokanCanadian Paediatric Society, Fetus and Newborn Committee, Ottawa, Ontario.
Ann L JefferiesCanadian Paediatric Society, Fetus and Newborn Committee, Ottawa, Ontario.
Steven P MillerCanadian Paediatric Society, Fetus and Newborn Committee, Ottawa, Ontario.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Brain imaging is important for the diagnosis and management of sick term neonates. Although ultrasound and computed tomography may provide some information, magnetic resonance imaging is now the brain imaging modality of choice because it is the most sensitive technique for detecting and quantifying brain abnormalities and does not expose infants to radiation. This statement describes the principles, roles and limitations of these three imaging modalities and makes recommendations for appropriate use in term neonates. The primary focus is the brain of term infants with neonatal encephalopathy, many of whom are diagnosed with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.

Indexed as

Brain imagingEncephalopathyNewborn

Identifiers

PMID30657135
PMCPMC6054233

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.