ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Four-section approach of fetal congenital heart disease at 11-13
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prenatal sonographic spectrum and first-trimester diagnostic features of Ebstein anomaly: A descriptive case series.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Current status and prospects of prenatal ultrasound diagnosis of congenital heart disease in fetuses: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Prenatal Ultrasound-Detected Structural Anomalies Associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Narrative Review.Consortium psychiatricum · 2026Review
- Prenatal diagnosis of pulmonary atresia with intact ventricular septum: a single-center study in China.Cardiovascular ultrasound · 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
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the study is to explore the value of the four-section approach in detecting fetal heart defects in the first trimester (11-13 Materials and methods: Between June 2019 and June 2021, a prenatal four-section approach (upper abdominal transverse section, four-chamber section, three vessel-trachea section, and bilateral subclavian artery section) with verification results in early pregnancy was analyzed. Results: In total, 9,533 fetuses were included. Finally, 176 fetuses with congenital heart disease (CHD), containing 34 types, were identified. The total detection rate of cardiac abnormalities was 1.85%. 102 cases were accurately diagnosed by ultrasonography during early pregnancy. A total of 74 fetuses who had inconsistent results between fetal cardiac ultrasound and verification in early pregnancy were reported, of which the cases of 22 fetuses were inconsistent due to disease evolution and progression and the cases of 52 fetuses were inconsistent due to missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the four-section approach were 67.05%, 99.96%, 96.58%, and 99.33%, respectively. In this study, a total of 30 abnormal ultrasonic imaging patterns in four sections were summarized. Conclusion: We confirmed that the four-section approach in early pregnancy has a good diagnostic efficacy for fetal CHD. Intrauterine evolution of the fetal heart, missed diagnosis, and misdiagnosis are the reasons for the inconsistency between the results of early pregnancy ultrasound and subsequent verification. This study also presents the abnormal imaging patterns of four scan sections of CHD in early pregnancy, which are instructive for the rapid identification and diagnosis of CHD in the first trimester.
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.