Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ UCL Discoveryarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Article . 2019 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 4 versions
addClaim

Postmortem fetal imaging: prospective blinded comparison of two‐dimensional ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging

prospective blinded comparison of two-dimensional ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: X. Kang; T. Cos Sanchez; O. J. Arthurs; E. Bevilacqua; M. M. Cannie; V. Segers; S. Lecomte; +2 Authors

Postmortem fetal imaging: prospective blinded comparison of two‐dimensional ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo compare the diagnostic rate and accuracy of 3‐Tesla (T) postmortem magnetic resonance imaging (PM‐MRI) and postmortem ultrasound (PM‐US) in an unselected fetal population.MethodsWe performed prospectively, in a blinded manner, 3‐T PM‐MRI and PM‐US on 160 unselected fetuses at 13–41 weeks of gestation. All imaging was reported according to a prespecified template, for five anatomical regions: brain, thorax, heart, abdomen and spine. The rates of non‐diagnostic results for PM‐US and PM‐MRI were compared and, for results that were diagnostic, we calculated sensitivity, specificity and concordance rates for each anatomical region, using conventional autopsy as the reference standard.Results3‐T PM‐MRI performed significantly better than did PM‐US overall and in particular for fetuses ≥ 20 weeks' gestation. Specifically, the non‐diagnostic rates for PM‐MRI vs PM‐US were 4.4% vs 26.9% (7/160 vs 43/160; P < 0.001) for the brain, 5.2% vs 17.4% (8/155 vs 27/155; P < 0.001) for the thorax, 3.8% vs 30.6% (6/157 vs 48/157; P < 0.001) for the heart and 3.2% vs 23.6% (5/157 vs 37/157; P < 0.001) for the abdomen. For the spine, both techniques showed an equally low non‐diagnostic rate. When both postmortem imaging techniques were diagnostic, they had similar accuracy, with no difference in sensitivity or specificity, and similar concordance with autopsy (PM‐US, 79.5–96.5%; PM‐MRI, 81.6–99.1%).ConclusionsPM‐MRI performed significantly better than PM‐US in this unselected population, due mainly to a lower non‐diagnostic rate. PM‐MRI should remain the first‐line imaging investigation for perinatal autopsy, but PM‐US could be considered if MRI is not available, albeit with a higher non‐diagnostic rate. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Countries
Belgium, United Kingdom
Keywords

termination, Gestational Age, Sensitivity and Specificity, autopsy, Fetus, Belgium, Pregnancy, Cause of Death, Ultrasound, Abdomen, Humans, Prospective Studies, Fetal Death, Ultrasonography, postmortem, ultrasound, Brain, Abortion, Induced, Heart, Thorax, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Spine, Female, Autopsy, MRI, Termination

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    32
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
32
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Green
bronze