Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35451852›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2023

Post-mortem perinatal imaging: what is the evidence?

Susan C Shelmerdine, Owen J Arthurs

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Triage and care for women with symptoms or diagnosis of pregnancy loss between 14 + 0 and 21 + 6 weeks' gestation.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Whole-body non-forensic fetal virtopsy using postmortem magnetic resonance imaging at 7 Tesla vs classical autopsy.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Susan C ShelmerdineDepartment of Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6642-9967
Owen J ArthursDepartment of Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Great Ormond Street Hospital · GBSt George's Hospital · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R002118/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Post-mortem imaging for the investigation of perinatal deaths is an acceptable tool amongst parents and religious groups, enabling a less invasive autopsy examination. Nevertheless, availability is scarce nationwide, and there is some debate amongst radiologists regarding the best practice and optimal protocols for performing such studies. Much of the published literature to date focusses on single centre experiences or interesting case reports. Diagnostic accuracy studies are available for a variety of individual imaging modalities (

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingPerinatal DeathAutopsyFemaleHumansPregnancyRadiologistsUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID35451852
PMCPMC10321257
OpenAlexW4224213609

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.