ArticleSystematic reviews2022
Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for nerve injury in obstetric brachial plexus injury: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting nerve injury in brachial plexus birth injury.The British journal of radiology · 2025Pooled it
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly and accurate clinical diagnosis of the extent of obstetric brachial plexus injury (OBPI) is challenging. The current gold standard for delineating the nerve injury is surgical exploration, and synchronous reconstruction is performed if indicated. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a non-invasive method of assessing the anatomy and severity of nerve injury in OBPI but the diagnostic accuracy is unclear. The primary objective of this review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI in comparison to surgical brachial plexus exploration for detecting root avulsion in children under 5 with OBPI. The secondary objectives are to determine its' diagnostic accuracy for detecting nerve abnormality and detecting pseudomeningocele(s) in this group.
methodsThis review will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA).We will include studies reporting the accuracy of MRI (index test) compared to surgical exploration (reference standard) in detecting any of the three target conditions (root avulsion, any nerve abnormality and pseudomeningocele) in children under five with OBPI. Case reports and studies where the number of true positives, false positives, true negatives and false negatives cannot be derived will be excluded. We plan to search PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL for relevant studies from database inception to 15 June 2022. We will also search grey literature (medRxiv, bioRxiv and Google Scholar) and perform forward and backward citation chasing. Screening and full-text assessment of eligibility will be conducted by two independent reviewers, who will then both extract the relevant data. The QUADAS-2 tool will be used to assess methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies by two reviewers independently. The following test characteristics for the target conditions will be extracted: true positives, false positives, true negatives and false negatives. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals will be shown in forest plots for each study. If appropriate, summary sensitivities and specificities for target conditions will be obtained via meta-analyses using a bivariate model. DISCUSSION: This study will aim to clarify the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting nerve injury in OBPI and define its clinical role. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021267629.
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.