ArticleJournal of medical case reports2025
Distinguishing omphalocele from pseudo-omphalocele, highlighting the ultrasonography pitfall: a case report.
Article in Journal of medical case reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOmphalocele is a congenital anomaly where abdominal contents herniate through a defect in the fetal abdominal wall, covered by peritoneum and amnion. It is associated with high mortality and other anomalies. Pseudo-omphalocele is a potential pitfall in antenatal ultrasonography, where a transient bulge of abdominal contents may appear owing to factors such as a contracted uterus, placenta, or excessive transducer pressure. CASE REPORT: This report presents two cases: one of true omphalocele in a twin pregnancy and another of pseudo-omphalocele, underscoring the importance of careful assessment. The first case involves a twin pregnancy at 12 weeks' gestation, conceived through assisted reproductive technique in a 38-year-old Nepali woman of Indo-Aryan ethnicity. During a routine check-up, one twin was diagnosed with omphalocele. Trans-abdominal fetal reduction of the anomalous twin was performed. The other twin progressed to term and was delivered via cesarean section at 39 weeks. The second case involved pseudo-omphalocele, observed at 15 weeks' 3 days of gestation in a 32-year-old Nepali woman of Tibeto-Burmese ethnicity. Initially, the fetal abdomen appeared to herniate, mimicking omphalocele. However, a repeat examination after 30 min showed no herniation or defect. Retrospective analysis revealed that the misdiagnosis occurred because the fetal abdomen was compressed between the contracted myometrium and placenta.
conclusionAccurate diagnosis of omphalocele is crucial to prevent unnecessary abortions and potential professional repercussions. We recommend repeat examination after 30 min in all cases of omphalocele to prevent misdiagnosis.
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.