ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2025
Offline ultrasound-MRI fusion imaging for assessment of normal fetal brain development.
Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2025. 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.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOffline fusion imaging refers to a posteriori merging of two datasets, from the same or from different imaging modalities. The objectives were to assess the feasibility of a standardized manual method for the offline fusion of three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data in demonstrating normal fetal brain development and to evaluate its potential clinical use throughout pregnancy.
methodsThis was a prospective study conducted at the Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital, Paris, France, from January to September 2021. We included normal singleton pregnancies between 16 + 0 and 36 + 0 weeks' gestation. Each patient underwent a 3D-US scan, with and without Micro-Vascularization Imaging Doppler, immediately followed by a T2-weighted MRI examination (1.5 Tesla) of the fetal brain. 3D-US and MRI images were merged using at least three registration landmarks, using modified 4D View Fusion software. The primary outcome was the success of US-MRI fusion imaging in obtaining three usable orthogonal planes. Secondary outcomes were the rate of entire neurosonogram visualization (on 3D-US acquisitions, MRI stacks and US-MRI fusion imaging) and the rate of visualization of each International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG) neurosonogram anatomical landmark.
resultsIn total, 113 pregnant women were included in the analysis. We obtained usable datasets in the three orthogonal planes for 3D-US and MRI in 87.6% (99/113) and 97.3% (110/113) of cases respectively. Usable US-MRI fusion imaging in the three planes was achieved in 85.8% (85/99) of cases. The entire neurosonogram was obtained in 9.4% (8/85), 74.1% (63/85) and 87.1% (74/85) respectively of 3D-US acquisitions, MRI stacks and US-MRI fusion imaging volumes (P < 0.01).
conclusionWe present a promising offline 3D-US-MRI fusion imaging tool that permits navigation within two merged volumes acquired on the same day. This technique seems easily achievable and may be of value for educational purposes and longitudinal follow up of fetal brain development in cases with increased risk of brain abnormalities. © 2025 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
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.