ArticleFetal diagnosis and therapy2021
MRI-Derived Fetal Weight Estimation in the Midpregnancy Fetus: A Method Comparison Study.
Article in Fetal diagnosis and therapy, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the standard ultrasound (US) estimated fetal weight (EFW) and MRI volume-derived methods for the midtrimester fetus.
methodsTwenty-five paired US and MRI scans had the EFW calculated (gestational age [GA] range = 20-26 weeks). The intra- and interobserver variability of each method was assessed (2 operators/modality). A small sub-analysis was performed on 5 fetuses who were delivered preterm (mean GA 29 +3 weeks) and compared to the actual birthweight.
resultsTwo MRI volumetry EFW formulae under-measured compared to US by -10.9% and -14.5% in the midpregnancy fetus (p < 0.001) but had excellent intra- and interobserver agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.998 and 0.993). In the preterm fetus, the mean relative difference (MRD) between the MRI volume-derived EFW (MRI-EFW) and actual expected birthweight (at the scan GA) was -13.7% (-159.0 g, 95% CI: -341.7 to 23.7 g) and -17.1% (-204.6 g, 95% CI: -380.4 to -28.8 g), for the 2 MRI formulae. The MRD was smaller for US at 5.3% (69.8 g, 95% CI: -34.3 to 173.9).
conclusionsMRI-EFW results should be interpreted with caution in midpregnancy. Despite excellent observer agreement with MRI volumetry, refinement of the EFW formula is needed in the second trimester, for the small and for the GA and preterm fetus to compensate for lower fetal densities.
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.