ArticleJournal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons
Application of Management, Outcome, Risk, and Expectation Classification for Antenatally Suspected Structural Anomalies: A Multidisciplinary Experience.
Article in Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The study aimed to assess the outcome of antenatally suspected structural congenital anomalies (ASSCAs) using a Management, Outcome, Risk, and Expectation (MORE) framework. Methods: A total of 426 ASSCAs were studied from records of a multidisciplinary clinic from August 2016 to August 2024. After excluding cases requiring initial genetic evaluation, 261 pregnancies underwent MORE analysis. Results: Maternal age ranged from 25 to 45 years (mean: 35 ± 3). Structural anomalies were first suspected between 12 and 33 weeks; 52.8% were identified before 20 weeks. The M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, and M-5 groups accounted for 55/261 (21.1%), 159/261 (60.9%), 28/261 (10.7%), 2/261 (0.8%), and 17/261 (6.5%), respectively. Outcomes were O-1, O-2, O-3, O-4, and O-5 in 63/261 (24.1%), 92/261 (35.2%), 83/261 (31.8%), 4/261 (1.5%), and 19/261 (7.3%), respectively. Referral for karyotyping was needed in 83/261 (31.8%) pregnancies (R-2), while R-1 and R-3 accounted for 160/261 (61.3%) and 18/261 (6.9%), respectively. R-2 cases incorporated the presence of more than two soft markers of aneuploidy, multiple anomalies, abdominal wall defects, and facial anomalies, etc., Parental expectations were categorized as E-1, E-2, and E-3 in 7/261 (2.7%), 220/261 (84.3%), and 34/261 (13.0%), respectively. Neonatal surgery was required in 68/261 (24.5%), while eight neonatal deaths occurred due to severe anomalies. Conclusion: MORE thereby optimizing prognostication, supporting evidence-based parental decision-making, and strengthening neonatal care delivery. Despite these benefits, its implementation was not uniform across healthcare settings, as attrition, limited availability of advanced diagnostic infrastructure, and sociocultural as well as economic constraints substantially influenced its feasibility and sustainability.
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.