ArticlePediatric surgery international2025
Management, Outcome, Risk, and Expectation classification for structural fetal anomalies to aid antenatal counseling: a prospective validation study.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 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.
- Application of Management, Outcome, Risk, and Expectation Classification for Antenatally Suspected Structural Anomalies: A Multidisciplinary Experience.Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAntenatal detection of structural fetal anomalies is rising with advancements in prenatal imaging, necessitating robust frameworks for risk stratification and counseling. Traditional binary approaches often fail to encompass the multifactorial decision-making process involved. To address this gap, the MORE classification system-encompassing Management (M), Outcome (O), Risk (R), and Expectation (E)-was developed to guide structured antenatal counseling.
methodsThis prospective study evaluated the inter-rater reliability and construct validity of the MORE classification when applied independently by three senior pediatric surgeons to 55 antenatally diagnosed fetal anomalies. Ratings were performed using the M, O, and R components, with E excluded from statistical analysis due to its subjectivity. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Fleiss' kappa, Cronbach's alpha, and Spearman's correlation were computed.
resultsThe study cohort had a median gestational age of 19 weeks, with 42% primigravidas. Isolated anomalies were predominant (80%), and 16.4% had suspected chromosomal associations. Internal consistency was acceptable to good (Cronbach's α: 0.757-0.812), and construct validity was high (Spearman's ρ overall = 0.812). ICCs indicated fair-to-moderate inter-rater agreement (0.398-0.584). Fleiss' kappa showed variable agreement: slight for Management (κ = 0.163), fair for Outcome (κ = 0.293), and moderate for Rsk (κ = 0.409). Test-retest reliability was excellent across all domains.
conclusionThe MORE classification demonstrated good reliability and strong validity in antenatal counseling when used by experienced pediatric surgeons. While the Outcome domain showed highest consistency, the Management and Risk domains warrant refinement for broader adoption. The classification provides a pragmatic, structured framework for multidisciplinary decision-making and can aid in standardizing antenatal counseling practices, especially in resource-limited settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41060393What 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.