ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2022
The accuracy of antenatal ultrasound screening in Malta: a population-based study
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2022. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyse the accuracy of antenatal ultrasound screening in Malta, comparing detection rates within the private and public sectors, and with the rest of Europe. To assess local trends in accuracy for each organ system. Material and Methods: Ethics approval was obtained to gather routinely collected data from the national congenital anomalies registry between 2016 and 2018. This was analysed to determine local antenatal ultrasound accuracy rates and trends. Electronic medical appointment record data was also used to indirectly determine whether a significant difference existed in the detection of antenatal anomalies in mothers scanned privately and those scanned within the public sector. χ2-for-trend was used to analyse changes in the accuracy rates. European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies (EUROCAT) data was used to compare scanning accuracy in Malta and other EUROCAT centres. Results: The local rate of undetected congenital anomalies was 62.0% for public scans and 83.9% for private scans. Local trends over the three-year period showed an improvement in accuracy rates in detecting isolated syndromes (p=0.05), anomalies of the renal system (p=0.02) and craniofacial anomalies (p=0.05). Malta’s overall performance was similar to other EUROCAT centres. Conclusion: Scans carried out within the public sector are more accurate than private scans, and Malta’s overall performance was similar to other EUROCAT centres.
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.