Observational studyBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2026
Anatomical-Motor Level Discrepancy in Prenatal Diagnosis of Open Spinal Dysraphism: A 12-Year Retrospective Observational Study.
Observational study in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo quantify the discrepancy between anatomical and motor levels in foetuses with open spinal dysraphism and identify prenatal factors associated with this difference. We also examined associations between anatomical level and ultrasound findings.
designRetrospective observational study.
settingSingle tertiary referral centre. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: A total of 187 foetuses diagnosed with open spinal dysraphism between 2011 and 2022.
methodsAnatomical level was defined as the highest non-closed vertebra on ultrasound. Motor level was determined through dynamic assessment of the most caudal active muscle group. The anatomical-motor level difference was calculated, and linear regression analyses were used to evaluate associated clinical and ultrasound variables, adjusting for anatomical level.
main outcome measuresDifference between anatomical and motor levels; association of ultrasound features with anatomical level.
resultsIn 85.0% of foetuses, the motor level was more caudal than the anatomical level, with a median difference of two vertebral segments (range -3 to +15). Greater discrepancies were associated with myeloschisis compared to myelomeningocele (adjusted coefficient: 0.78, p < 0.001). Bilateral talipes and kyphosis were linked to smaller discrepancies. Higher anatomical levels were significantly associated with ventriculomegaly and vertebral anomalies.
conclusionsIn foetuses with open spinal dysraphism, the motor level assessed by prenatal ultrasound is frequently more caudal than the anatomical level, with a discrepancy in over 80% of cases. The magnitude is influenced by lesion type and anatomical height, with myeloschisis and higher lesions showing greater differences. Additionally, anatomical level correlates with several ultrasound findings, including ventriculomegaly and vertebral anomalies.
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.