Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31065842›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2019

Comparison of cranial ultrasound and MRI for detecting BRAIN injury in extremely preterm infants and correlation with neurological outcomes at 1 and 3 years.

Katherine Burkitt, Owen Kang, Rajeev Jyoti, Abdel-Latif Mohamed, Tejasvi Chaudhari

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Evaluation of Severe ultrasound and gene diagnosis in cardiac index and shock patient index of shock patients.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katherine BurkittMedical School, College of Medicine, Biology & Environment, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia.
Owen KangDepartment of Radiology, The Canberra Hospital, Garran, ACT, Australia.
Rajeev JyotiMedical School, College of Medicine, Biology & Environment, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia.
Abdel-Latif MohamedMedical School, College of Medicine, Biology & Environment, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia.
Tejasvi ChaudhariMedical School, College of Medicine, Biology & Environment, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia. Tejasvi.Chaudhari@act.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6356-8048
Australian National University · AUCanberra Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of different grades of brain injuries on serial and term equivalent age (TEA)-cranial ultrasound imaging (cUS) as compared to TEA magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in extremely preterm infants < 28 weeks, and determine the predictive value of imaging abnormalities on neurodevelopmental outcome at 1 and 3 years. Seventy-five infants were included in the study. Severe TEA-cUS injury had high positive predictive value-PPV (100%) for predicting severe MRI injury compared to mild to moderate TEA-cUS injury or severe injury on worst cranial ultrasound scan. Absence of moderate to severe injury on TEA cUS or worst serial cUS was a good predictor of a normal MRI (negative predictive values > 93%). Severe grade 3 injuries on TEA-US had high predictive values in predicting abnormal neurodevelopment at both 1 and 3 years of age (PPV 100%). All grades of MRI and worst serial cUS injuries poorly predicted abnormal neurodevelopment at 1 and 3 years. Absence of an injury either on a cranial ultrasound or an MRI did not predict a normal outcome. Multiple logistic regression did not show a significant correlation between imaging injury and neurodevelopmental outcomes.Conclusion: This study demonstrates that TEA cUS can reliably identify severe brain abnormalities that would be seen on MRI imaging and positively predict abnormal neurodevelopment at both 1 and 3 years. Although MRI can pick up more subtle abnormalities that may be missed on cUS, their predictive value on neurodevelopmental impairment is poor. Normal cUS and MRI scan may not exclude abnormal neurodevelopment. Routine TEA-MRI scan provides limited benefit in predicting abnormal neurodevelopment in extremely preterm infants. What is Known: • Preterm neonates are at increased risk of white matter and other brain injuries, which may be associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcome. • MRI is the most accurate method in detecting white matter injuries. What is New: • TEA-cUS can reliably detect severe brain injuries on MRI, but not mild/moderate lesions as well as abnormal neurodevelopment at 1 and 3 years. • TEA-MRI brain injury is poor in predicting abnormal neurodevelopment at 1 and 3 years and normal cUS or MRI brain injury may not guarantee normal neurodevelopment.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, Extremely PrematureInfant, NewbornInfant, Premature, DiseasesInjury Severity ScoreMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeurodevelopmental DisordersPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesUltrasonographyCranial ultrasoundEchogenicityMagnetic resonance imagingNeurodevelopmental outcomePretermWhite matter injury

Identifiers

PMID31065842
OpenAlexW2944098893

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.