Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34046707›Full record

ArticlePediatric radiology2021

Maternal and fetal incidental findings on antenatal magnetic resonance imaging.

Lisa Story, Caroline L Knight, Alison Ho, Sophie Arulkumaran, Jacqueline Matthews, Holly Lovell, Laura McCabe, Megan Byrne, Alexia Egloff, Audrey E T Jacques and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Lisa StoryDepartment of Women and Children's Health, King's College London, 10th Floor North Wing, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK. Lisa.story@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9328-9592
Caroline L KnightDepartment of Women and Children's Health, King's College London, 10th Floor North Wing, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Alison HoDepartment of Women and Children's Health, King's College London, 10th Floor North Wing, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Sophie ArulkumaranCentre for the Developing Brain, King's College, London, London, UK.
Jacqueline MatthewsCentre for the Developing Brain, King's College, London, London, UK.
Holly LovellDepartment of Women and Children's Health, King's College London, 10th Floor North Wing, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Laura McCabeCentre for the Developing Brain, King's College, London, London, UK.
Megan ByrneFetal Medicine Unit, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alexia EgloffCentre for the Developing Brain, King's College, London, London, UK.
Audrey E T JacquesDepartment of Radiology, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jim CarmichaelDepartment of Radiology, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jo HajnalCentre for the Developing Brain, King's College, London, London, UK.
Andrew ShennanDepartment of Women and Children's Health, King's College London, 10th Floor North Wing, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK.
Mary RutherfordCentre for the Developing Brain, King's College, London, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 102431
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations are increasingly used in antenatal clinical practice. Incidental findings are a recognized association with imaging and although in some circumstances their identification can alter management, they are often associated with increased anxiety, for both patient and clinician, as well as increased health care costs.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the incidence of unexpected findings in both the mother and fetus during antenatal MRI examinations. MATERIALS AND

methodsA retrospective study was undertaken over a five-year period at St.. Thomas' Hospital in London. Maternal incidental findings were recorded from all clinical reports of all fetal MRIs performed (for clinical reasons and in healthy volunteers) during this period. Fetal incidental findings were recorded only in cases where women with uncomplicated pregnancies were participating as healthy volunteers.

resultsA total of 2,569 MRIs were included; 17% of women had maternal incidental findings. Of these, 1,099 were women with uncomplicated pregnancies who undertook research MRIs as healthy volunteers; fetal incidental findings were identified in 12.3%.

conclusionIncidental findings are a common occurrence in antenatal MRI. Consideration should be given to counseling women appropriately before imaging and ensuring that robust local protocols are in place for follow-up and further management of such cases.

Indexed as

Incidental FindingsMagnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleFetusHumansMothersPregnancyRetrospective StudiesFetusIncidental findingsMagnetic resonance imagingPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID34046707
PMCPMC8426300

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.