ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2019
Postmortem magnetic resonance imaging vs autopsy of second trimester fetuses terminated due to anomalies.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Obstructed supracardiac TAPVC with atretic common pulmonary vein and dual vertical veins: Clinical and postmortem correlation in a term neonate.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- Perinatal post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the central nervous system (CNS): a pictorial review.Insights into imaging · 2021Review
- Visualisation of fetal meconium on post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging scans: a retrospective observational study.Acta radiologica open · 2020Article
- Postmortem magnetic resonance imaging vs autopsy of second trimester fetuses terminated due to anomalies.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 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
Abstract
introductionOur aim was to investigate the accuracy of postmortem fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with fetal autopsy in second trimester pregnancies terminated due to fetal anomalies. A secondary aim was to compare the MRI evaluations of two senior radiologists. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis was a prospective study including 34 fetuses from pregnancies terminated in the second trimester due to fetal anomalies. All women accepted a postmortem MRI and an autopsy of the fetus. Two senior radiologists performed independent evaluations of the MRI images. A senior pathologist performed the fetal autopsies. The degree of concordance between the MRI evaluations and the autopsy reports was estimated as well as the consensus between the radiologists.
resultsThirty-four fetuses were evaluated. Sixteen cases were associated with the central nervous system (CNS), five were musculoskeletal, one cardiovascular, one was associated with the urinary tract, and 11 cases had miscellaneous anomalies such as chromosomal aberrations, infections and syndromes. In the 16 cases related to the CNS, both radiologists reported all or some, including the most clinically significant anomalies in 15 (94%; CI 70%-100%) cases. In the 18 non-CNS cases, both radiologists reported all or some, including the most clinically significant anomalies in six (33%; CI 5%-85%) cases. In 21 cases (62%; CI 44%-78%), both radiologists held opinions that were consistent with the autopsy reports. The degree of agreement between the radiologists was high, with a Cohen's Kappa of 0.87.
conclusionsPostmortem fetal MRI can replace autopsy for second trimester fetuses with CNS anomalies. For non-CNS anomalies, the concordance is lower but postmortem MRI can still be of value when autopsy is not an option.
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.