Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34826157›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2022

Comparison of postmortem whole-body contrast-enhanced microfocus computed tomography and high-field magnetic resonance imaging of human fetuses.

Y Dawood, C Honhoff, A-S van der Post, S D Roosendaal, B F Coolen, G J Strijkers, E Pajkrt, B S de Bakker

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Y Dawood *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1218-3540
C Honhoff *Department of Medical Biology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A-S van der PostDepartment of Radiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S D RoosendaalDepartment of Radiology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
B F CoolenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
G J StrijkersDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
E PajkrtDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
B S de BakkerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam Neuroscience · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAlthough fetal autopsy is generally recommended to confirm or refute the antemortem diagnosis, parental acceptance of the procedure has fallen over time, mainly due to its invasiveness. Contrast-enhanced microfocus CT (micro-CT) and high-field magnetic resonance imaging (HF-MRI, ≥ 3 Tesla) have both been suggested as non-invasive alternatives to conventional fetal autopsy for fetuses < 20 weeks of gestation. The aim of this study was to compare these two modalities in postmortem whole-body fetal imaging.

methodsIn this study, the imaging process and quality of micro-CT and HF-MRI were compared using both qualitative and quantitative assessments. For the qualitative evaluation, fetal anatomy experts scored 56 HF-MRI and 56 micro-CT images of four human fetuses aged 13-18 gestational weeks on two components: overall image quality and the ability to recognize and assess 21 anatomical structures. For the quantitative evaluation, participants segmented manually three organs with increasing complexity to assess interobserver variability. In addition, the signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios of five major organs were determined.

resultsBoth imaging techniques were able to reach submillimeter voxel size. The highest resolution of micro-CT was 22 µm (isotropic), while the highest resolution of HF-MRI was 137 µm (isotropic). The qualitative image assessment form was sent to 45 fetal anatomy experts, of whom 36 (80%) responded. It was observed that micro-CT scored higher on all components of the qualitative assessment compared with HF-MRI. In addition, the quantitative assessment showed that micro-CT had lower interobserver variability and higher signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios.

conclusionsOur findings show that micro-CT outperforms HF-MRI in postmortem whole-body fetal imaging in terms of both quantitative and qualitative outcomes. Combined, these findings suggest that the ability to extract diagnostic information is greater when assessing micro-CT compared with HF-MRI images. We, therefore, believe that micro-CT is the preferred imaging modality as an alternative to conventional fetal autopsy for early gestation and is an indispensable tool in postmortem imaging services. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

FetusMagnetic Resonance ImagingAutopsyFemaleGestational AgeHumansPregnancyX-Ray Microtomographyfetal anatomyhigh-field magnetic resonance imaginghuman fetusmicrofocus computed tomographypostmortem whole-body fetal imaging

Identifiers

PMID34826157
PMCPMC9328149
OpenAlexW3217790807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.