Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30887398›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2019

Perinatal post mortem ultrasound (PMUS): a practical approach.

Susan C Shelmerdine, Neil J Sebire, Owen J Arthurs

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insights into imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Post-mortem perinatal imaging: what is the evidence?The British journal of radiology · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. [Postmortem sonography helpful in death of unknown origin].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Susan C ShelmerdineGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, WC1N 3JH, UK. susan.shelmerdine@gosh.nhs.uk.
Neil J SebireGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, WC1N 3JH, UK.
Owen J ArthursGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, WC1N 3JH, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2017-10-037Department of Health NIHR-CS-012-002Medical Research Council MR/R002118/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Declining rates of consent for standard perinatal autopsy has led to a rise in interest for postmortem imaging as an alternative, non-invasive method for investigation of childhood and perinatal deaths. Whilst much interest has focussed on cross-sectional techniques such as postmortem CT (PMCT) or MRI (PMMR), other modalities including postmortem ultrasound (PMUS) have been shown to have reasonable diagnostic accuracy rates, with the added benefit of being more readily accessible and affordable. There is little published information or formal guidance available on preparation for postmortem perinatal ultrasound, views to be obtained and differentiating normal postmortem change from potential abnormalities.This article will focus on the role of perinatal postmortem ultrasound as an alternative imaging method for non-invasive autopsy, with emphasis on imaging technique, practical considerations and commonly encountered case examples.

Indexed as

AutopsyChildDiagnostic imagingMethodologyUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID30887398
PMCPMC6423182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.