ArticleMedical journal, Armed Forces India
Comparison of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging findings in evaluation of fetal congenital anomalies: A single-institution prospective observational study.
Article in Medical journal, Armed Forces India. 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.
- Diagnostic Impact of Fetal MRI in 556 Fetuses: Where It Adds Value Beyond Ultrasound.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare the ultrasound (USG) and fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in the evaluation of congenital fetal anomalies and to determine whether the management is changes significantly if MRI is combined with USG. Methods: In this prospective observational cohort study, we performed fetal MRI in 90 consecutive cases of fetuses diagnosed or suspected as having congenital anomalies on a prior level II USG scan. We then compared the USG and MRI findings of each anomaly according to the diagnostic information yielded by each modality. Results: Of 90 fetuses examined during 1 year study period, MRI and USG findings were equivalent in 13.3% of cases. MRI provided additional information in 68.8% cases, of which pregnancy management was changed in 5.6% cases. MRI provided additional information but did not change management in 63.3% of cases. USG provided additional information but did not change pregnancy management in 17.8% of cases. The difference was statistically significant with a Conclusion: Fetal MRI is a significantly better modality than USG for detecting additional findings in anomalies of specific organ systems. Because of its high diagnostic yield for central nervous system (CNS) anomalies, it can be combined with USG for this subgroup. For non-CNS anomalies of genitourinary system, thorax, or in syndromic/complex malformations/conjoint twin pregnancy, it may be used as an adjunct to USG on a case to case basis. MRI has the potential to change the pregnancy management in few cases, but benefit is small to advocate a complete integration of MRI and USG for fetal anomaly scanning at present.
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.