ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2022
Diagnostic Value and High-Risk Factors of Two-Dimensional Ultrasonography Combined with Four-Dimensional Ultrasonography in Prenatal Ultrasound Screening of Fetal Congenital Malformations.
Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- LPC-SonoNet: A Lightweight Network Based on SonoNet and Light Pyramid Convolution for Fetal Ultrasound Standard Plane Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study mainly analyzes the diagnostic value of two-dimensional ultrasonography (2D-US) combined with four-dimensional ultrasonography (4D-US) in prenatal ultrasound screening of fetal congenital malformations (CMs) and explores the high-risk factors affecting fetal malformations. Methods: The clinical and imaging data of 2247 pregnant women who underwent prenatal fetal malformation screening in the General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University between February 2020 and October 2021 were collected and analyzed, retrospectively. All pregnant women underwent 2D-US, and those with suspected fetal malformations were further inspected by 4D-US. The accuracy of ultrasound examination results relative to actual pregnancy outcomes was analyzed, taking the neonatal malformation after induced labor or actual delivery as the gold standard, and the risk factors influencing the occurrence of fetal malformations were discussed. Results: A total of 87 cases (3.87%) of fetal malformations were detected out of the 2247 parturients examined. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 2D-US diagnosis were 81.40%, 43.68%, and 82.92%, respectively, while the data were 83.67%, 51.72%, and 84.95% for 4D-US, respectively, and 93.59%, 90.80%, and 93.70%, respectively, for 2D-US +4D-US. The combined diagnosis of 2D-US +4D-US achieved statistically higher accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity than either of them alone. One-way analysis of variance and multivariate logistic regression analysis identified that the independent risk factors affecting fetal malformation were age ≥ 35, history of adverse pregnancy and childbirth, medication during pregnancy, toxic exposure during pregnancy, and history of seropositive for TORCH-IgM. Folic acid supplementation was a protective factor. Conclusions: Prenatal US is an effective approach for screening fetal malformations. 2D-US +4D-US can effectively improve the diagnostic rate of fetal malformations. For pregnant women with high-risk factors, prevention should be given priority, and prenatal screening and prenatal diagnosis should be standardized to reduce the occurrence of fetal malformations.
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.