ReviewJournal of hand and microsurgery2025
Antenatal ultrasound cannot detect all congenital Anomalies: Clinical limitations, India-specific barriers, and medicolegal perspectives.
Review in Journal of hand and microsurgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antenatal ultrasound is central to prenatal screening, enabling early detection of many congenital anomalies. However, its diagnostic accuracy is limited, especially for subtle, complex, or late-onset fetal abnormalities. In India, additional systemic, infrastructural, and legal factors further restrict its effectiveness. Objectives: To review the diagnostic limitations of prenatal ultrasound, highlight India-specific barriers to anomaly detection, and examine medico-legal perspectives, including landmark court rulings on alleged negligence. Methods: This article synthesizes global and Indian data on anomaly detection rates, analyzes categories of commonly missed anomalies, and reviews relevant Indian legal cases, including Supreme Court judgments. The policy implications of the PCPNDT Act are also critically discussed. Results: Ultrasound detects 50-70 % of major anomalies in ideal settings, but many conditions-such as cardiac defects, skeletal dysplasias, orofacial defects ( Cleft lip, Cleft palate etc) and limb abnormalities-remain undiagnosed. India-specific challenges include operator variability, delayed antenatal care, equipment disparities, and regulatory hurdles under the PCPNDT Act. Indian courts consistently require expert testimony to establish negligence and have ruled in favor of clinicians when standard protocols were followed. Conclusion: Missed anomalies on antenatal ultrasound typically reflect known technical and systemic limitations, not medical negligence. Indian jurisprudence has set a clinician-protective precedent when standard care is provided. Counseling, documentation, and legal awareness remain key to mitigating risk. Policy reforms should promote ethical ultrasound use while safeguarding both patient access and provider protection.
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.