ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Changes in appearance of cortical formation abnormalities in the foetus detected on sequential in utero MR imaging.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fetal malformations of cortical development: review and clinical guidance.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2025Review
- Prenatal assessment of brain malformations on neuroimaging: an expert panel review.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe describe 64 foetuses with cortical formation abnormalities (CFA) who had two in utero magnetic resonance (iuMR) exams, paying particular detail to those in which the original classification of CFA category changed between the two studies. The goal was to attempt to quantify the value of third-trimester follow-up studies in CFA foetuses on second-trimester iuMR imaging.
methodsThe 64 foetuses reviewed came from a CFA cohort of 374 foetuses reported in an earlier publication, which detailed a classification for foetal CFA. A consensus panel of senior paediatric neuroradiologists reviewed both studies, described any change in the category of CFA between them, and attempted to predict the possible clinical significance of any differences based on the combined clinical experience of the panel.
resultsIn 40/64 (62%) foetuses, the CFA description was the same on both studies. In 24/64 (38%) cases, there was a category change which included three foetuses without CFA on first examination, six foetuses where the difference involved change in laterality/symmetry, and in 15 cases the re-classification involved categorical change within the same group. Brain abnormalities other than CFA were present in 30/64 (47%) foetuses on the first study and in 33/64 (52%) on the second. We predicted that prognosis would have changed on the basis of the second study in 8% of cases, all indicating worse prognosis.
conclusionsWe have shown that the extra diagnostic and predicted prognostic yield justifies follow-up studies in the third trimester if a CFA is shown on the second-trimester iuMR imaging. KEY POINTS: • Sixty-four foetuses with cortical formation abnormalities had two iuMR studies, for the vast majority the baseline in the second trimester and the sequential in the third. • In three foetuses, the cortical formation abnormality (CFA) was not visible on the first study. In a further 21 foetuses, the categorical description of the CFA changed between the two studies. Prognosis changed in 8% of the cases following the second iuMR study, and in all cases, the prognosis was worse. • Multiple iuMR studies provide information about the natural history of CFA; the extra diagnostic and predicted prognostic yield justifies follow-up studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32885300What 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.