ReviewBMC medical imaging2022
Comparison of prenatal ultrasound with MRI in the evaluation and prediction of fetal orofacial clefts.
Review in BMC medical imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Practice Guideline: The Treatment of Cleft Lip and Palate Deformities.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Guideline
- Antenatal care and childbirth experience among parents of children with orofacial clefts: an observational study.BMC oral health · 2026Observational
- A preliminary and exploratory investigation of velopharyngeal structural MRI following a modified Z-plasty approach in patients with cleft palate.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Global, regional, and national burden of orofacial clefts, 1990-2021: an analysis of data from the global burden of disease study 2021.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- An effective ultrasound fetal palate screening software based on the "sequential sector scan through the oral fissure" and three-dimensional ultrasound.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Methods for the Prenatal Detection of Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Craniofacial phenotyping with fetal MRI: a feasibility study of 3D visualisation, segmentation, surface-rendered and physical models.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- [Early diagnosis of congenital craniofacial differences: a systematic review of current evidence].Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOrofacial clefts (OFCs) are common craniofacial abnormalities. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic and predictive values of prenatal ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsWe reviewed the newborn physical examinations or fetal autopsy data with OFCs. Between January 2013 and December 2018, the diagnoses resulting from prenatal US and MRI examination were compared retrospectively with the postpartum diagnoses. The diagnostic prediction of prenatal imaging was then determined.
results334 infants were identified with OFCs by either newborn physical exam or stillborn autopsy. For detection of OFCs by US, the total accuracy (ACC), true positive rate (TPR), true negative rate (TNR), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 99.9% (111,178/110,286), 81.9% (230/281), 99.9% (109,948/110,005), 80.1% (230/287), and 99.9% (109,948/109,999), respectively. For MRI, the ACC, TPR, TNR, PPV, and NPV were 99.8% (4,125/4,132), 89.8% (44/49), 99.9% (4,081/4,083), 95.7% (44/46), and 99.9% (4,081/4,086), respectively. When we compared the predictive values between prenatal US and MRI, there were significant differences in the PPV of OFCs (P < 0.05), NPV of OFCs (P < 0.05), TPR of CLO (P < 0.001), PPV of CLP (P < 0.05), and TPR of CPO (P < 0.05).
conclusionOur results suggest that prenatal US could be effective for diagnosing and ruling out fetal OFCs. Diagnostic confidence is significantly improved when fetal MRI is used to assess fetal OFCs as an adjunct to US examination.
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.