Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32149428›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2021

Diagnostic accuracy of postmortem ultrasound vs postmortem 1.5-T MRI for non-invasive perinatal autopsy.

S C Shelmerdine, N J Sebire, O J Arthurs

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Post-mortem perinatal imaging: what is the evidence?The British journal of radiology · 2023
    Review
  7. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

S C ShelmerdineDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6642-9967
N J SebireUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK.
O J ArthursDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK.
Great Ormond Street Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health 14/168/02Department of Health CDF-2017-10-037Great Ormond Street Children's CharityMedical Research Council MR/R002118/1Medical Research Council MR/R00218/1National Institute for Health Research NIHR-CDF-2017-10-037Royal College of Radiologists MR/R00218/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of postmortem magnetic resonance imaging (PM-MRI) and postmortem ultrasound (PM-US) for perinatal autopsy in the same patient cohort, and to determine whether PM-US can provide the same anatomical information as PM-MRI.

methodsIn this prospective, 5-year (July 2014-July 2019) single-center study, we performed 1.5-T PM-MRI and PM-US in an unselected cohort of perinatal deaths. The diagnostic accuracies of both modalities were calculated, using autopsy as the reference standard. As a secondary objective, the concordance rates between the two imaging modalities for the overall main diagnosis and for five anatomical regions (brain, spine, thorax, heart and abdomen) were calculated.

resultsDuring the study period, 136 cases underwent both PM-US and PM-MRI, of which 88 (64.7%) also underwent autopsy. There was no significant difference in the rates of concordance with autopsy between the two modalities for overall diagnosis (PM-US, 86.4% (95% CI, 77.7-92.0%) vs PM-MRI, 88.6% (95% CI, 80.3-93.7%)) or in the sensitivities and specificities for individual anatomical regions. There were more non-diagnostic PM-US than PM-MRI examinations for the brain (22.8% vs 3.7%) and heart (14.7% vs 5.1%). If an 'imaging-only' autopsy had been performed, PM-US would have achieved the same diagnosis as 1.5-T PM-MRI in 86.8% (95% CI, 80.0-91.5%) of cases, with the highest rates of agreement being for spine (99.3% (95% CI, 95.9-99.9%)) and cardiac (97.3% (95% CI, 92.4-99.1%)) findings and the lowest being for brain diagnoses (85.2% (95% CI, 76.9-90.8%)).

conclusionAlthough there were fewer non-diagnostic cases using PM-MRI than for PM-US, the high concordance rate for overall diagnosis suggests that PM-US could be used for triaging cases when PM-MRI access is limited or unavailable. © 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

AdultAutopsyFemaleFetusHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPerinatal DeathPregnancyProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyautopsymagnetic resonance imagingpediatricperinatalultrasound

Identifiers

PMID32149428
PMCPMC8432154
OpenAlexW3010458352

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.