ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2020
Audit of level II scans in a tertiary center of a middle-income country (MIC).
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextSignificant anomalies are those that are lethal or those that require prolonged follow-up and unaffordable treatments. Detection of these anomalies allows early termination or the support systems necessary for pregnancies with these diagnoses. Anxiety associated with overdiagnosis makes the woman a victim of modern imaging technology. However, accurate detection of significant anomalies in a busy scan room of a developing country with the need to cater to large numbers is particularly challenging.
aimsThe aim was to audit the diagnostic accuracy in a busy scan room. SETTINGS AND
designRetrospective cohort in a tertiary center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Audit of significant anomalies identified at the 20-week scan was performed after the expected date of confinement. Anomalies that were missed or overdiagnosed were noted. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: All the categorical variables in this research were summarized using counts and percentages.
resultsTwenty-eight thousand women underwent morphology ultrasound during the study period. 963 (3.4%) women were detected to have anomalies at birth. Multiple anomalies were seen in 285 (30%) cases and isolated ones in 678 (70%) cases. Anomalies of the genitourinary system were the commonest followed by the anomalies of central nervous system. Only 53 (0.2%) anomalies were missed. They were mainly syndromes and anomalies of the cardiovascular system. The most significant anomalies that were identified could be diagnosed with a basic ultrasound machine.
conclusions910/963 (95%) of significant anomalies can be identified even in busy centers if a systematic assessment approach is ensured.
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.