Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33721554›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet. Child & adolescent health2021

Fetal body MRI and its application to fetal and neonatal treatment: an illustrative review.

Joseph R Davidson, Alena Uus, Jacqueline Matthew, Alexia M Egloff, Maria Deprez, Iain Yardley, Paolo De Coppi, Anna David, Jim Carmichael, Mary A Rutherford

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet. Child & adolescent health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Cervical length assessment using magnetic resonance imaging during pregnancy: correlation and agreement with transvaginal ultrasound.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Joseph R DavidsonPrenatal Cell and Gene Therapy, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute of Women's Health, University College London, London, UK; UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: joseph.davidson@ucl.ac.uk.
Alena UusStem Cells and Regenerative Medicine; Perinatal Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Jacqueline MatthewStem Cells and Regenerative Medicine; Perinatal Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Alexia M EgloffStem Cells and Regenerative Medicine; Perinatal Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Maria DeprezStem Cells and Regenerative Medicine; Perinatal Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Iain YardleyPaediatric Surgery, Evelina London Children's Hospital, London, UK.
Paolo De CoppiUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK; Specialist Neonatal and Paediatric Surgery, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK; Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Anna DavidPrenatal Cell and Gene Therapy, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute of Women's Health, University College London, London, UK; Fetal Medicine Unit, University College London, London, UK.
Jim CarmichaelPaediatric Radiology, Evelina London Children's Hospital, London, UK.
Mary A RutherfordStem Cells and Regenerative Medicine; Perinatal Imaging, School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/V006797/1Wellcome Trust 102431Wellcome Trust 102431_Z_13_ZWellcome Trust 203148Wellcome Trust 203148/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This Review depicts the evolving role of MRI in the diagnosis and prognostication of anomalies of the fetal body, here including head and neck, thorax, abdomen and spine. A review of the current literature on the latest developments in antenatal imaging for diagnosis and prognostication of congenital anomalies is coupled with illustrative cases in true radiological planes with viewable three-dimensional video models that show the potential of post-acquisition reconstruction protocols. We discuss the benefits and limitations of fetal MRI, from anomaly detection, to classification and prognostication, and defines the role of imaging in the decision to proceed to fetal intervention, across the breadth of included conditions. We also consider the current capabilities of ultrasound and explore how MRI and ultrasound can complement each other in the future of fetal imaging.

Indexed as

Abdominal CavityClinical Decision-MakingCongenital AbnormalitiesFemaleGestational AgeHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalInfantInfant, NewbornMagnetic Resonance ImagingPregnancyPrenatal CarePrenatal DiagnosisPrognosisRadiology

Identifiers

PMID33721554
PMCPMC7614154

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.