ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
1.5T magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating fetal head and abdomen malformations: a preliminary study.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in the diagnosis of fetal malformations. The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of 1.5T MRI in fetal head and abdominal malformations.
methodsA total of 132 pregnant women admitted to Shijiazhuang NO.4 Hospital were included and divided into a control group (CG; n=63) and a research group (RG; n=69) according to different prenatal examination methods. Patients in CG were given ultrasound, while those in RG underwent 1.5T MRI examination. The image quality of 1.5T MRI in different amniotic fluid, different gestational weeks with normal amniotic fluid and different fetal positions with normal amniotic fluid were compared. The detection rate and diagnostic value of the two methods were also compared, with the histological and pathological results as the gold standard.
resultsThe image quality of 1.5T MRI was not affected by different gestational age with normal amniotic fluid, different fetal positions with normal amniotic fluid, or different amniotic fluid, indicating the feasibility of 1.5T MRI in fetal malformation examination. Histopathological diagnosis revealed 39 cases of head and abdominal deformities in CG and 50 cases in RG. Based on the results of ultrasound examination, there were 32 cases of deformities and 31 of non-deformities in CG. In RG, 1.5T MRI revealed 48 malformations and 21 non-malformations. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis rates were 82.05%, 75.00%, 79.37%, 17.95% and 25.00% respectively in CG where ultrasonography was performed, and were 96.00%, 94.74%, 95.65%, 4.00% and 5.26% respectively in RG where 1.5T MRI was performed. The data identified significant differences in sensitivity, accuracy and missed diagnosis between RG and CG.
conclusion1.5T MRI is effective in diagnosing fetal head and abdominal malformations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34540019PMC8430194What 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.