ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2025
Prenatal Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Anorectal Malformations: Correlating Prenatal Signs With Postnatal Outcomes.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reference Ranges of Maximum Diameter and Volume of the Fetal Large Intestine During the Second-to Third-Trimester: An MRI Study.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Congenital Gastrointestinal Malformations in a Romanian Tertiary Centre (2020-2024): A Retrospective Cohort Study of Diagnosis, Distribution, and Outcomes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Early US Prenatal Diagnosis and Serial Imaging Confirmation of Hydrometrocolpos with Uterine Didelphys and Cloacal Malformation: A Rare Case of Combined Müllerian Duct and Anorectal Anomaly.International medical case reports journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study explored prenatal ultrasound markers in patients with anorectal malformations (ARMs).
methodsAll patients treated for ARM in our institution from January 2014 to December 2021 with an available expert fetal anomaly scan (eFAS) were reviewed. The eFAS images were assessed to evaluate the fetal anus, specifically by identifying hyperechoic anal mucosa surrounded by hypoechoic anal sphincter, referred to as "target sign" (TS). Furthermore, indirect signs of ARM were assessed and correlated with postnatal clinical symptoms.
resultsOf the 115 patients treated for ARM, 32 mothers underwent eFAS. TS was assessed in 22 fetuses, of which 17 (77.3%) had an absent or abnormal TS. Of the patients with a postnatally confirmed complex type of ARM, 90% had an absent or abnormal TS. One or more indirect signs of ARM were found in 16 out of 32 fetuses (50.0%), comprising echogenic bowel (n = 3), echogenic meconium (n = 2), dilated intestines (n = 7), echo-lucent cavity behind the urinary bladder (n = 4), abnormal external genitalia (n = 6), and polyhydramnios (n = 5).
conclusionThis retrospective cohort study provides valuable insights into the potential role of TS assessment and indirect signs in the prenatal diagnosis of ARM. Future studies should further validate our findings and elicit whether TS assessment should be incorporated into prenatal screening protocols.
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.