Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36471263›Full record

ReviewBMC medical imaging2022

Comparison of prenatal ultrasound with MRI in the evaluation and prediction of fetal orofacial clefts.

Shuangshuang Gai, Lixiu Wang, Weizeng Zheng

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shuangshuang Gai *Department of Ultrasound, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Jiefang Rd No.88, Hangzhou, 310029, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Lixiu Wang *Department of Ultrasound, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Xueshi Rd No.1, Hangzhou, 310006, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Weizeng ZhengDepartment of Radiology, Women's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Xueshi Rd No.1, Hangzhou, 310006, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China. y216180194@zju.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-8185-1496
Women's Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cleft LipCleft PalateFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMagnetic Resonance ImagingPregnancyRetrospective StudiesUltrasonography, PrenatalMagnetic resonance imagingOrofacial cleftPredictive value of testsPrenatal diagnosisUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID36471263
PMCPMC9720929
OpenAlexW4310675955

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.