Post-mortem magnetic resonance (PMMR) imaging of fetal central nervous system: A systematic review

L. Filograna , B. Bernardi , P.M. Flach , R.M. Martinez , C. Carducci , M.J. Thali , P. Tomà
{"title":"Post-mortem magnetic resonance (PMMR) imaging of fetal central nervous system: A systematic review","authors":"L. Filograna ,&nbsp;B. Bernardi ,&nbsp;P.M. Flach ,&nbsp;R.M. Martinez ,&nbsp;C. Carducci ,&nbsp;M.J. Thali ,&nbsp;P. Tomà","doi":"10.1016/j.jofri.2017.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this systematic review the diagnostic capabilities of post-mortem MR (PMMR) concerning brain and spinal cord abnormalities compared to traditional autopsy were analyzed.</p><p>A computerized online search of scientific articles was performed using Medline (PubMed) databases in June 2016 to identify all studies comparing PMMR with conventional autopsy in detecting fetal central nervous system alterations. Titles and abstracts were screened based on these exclusion criteria: no paediatric cases, neuroradiological alterations not reported, studies not in English, case reports and reviews, less than 10 subjects analyzed, PMMR performed on MR Units with magnetic field different from 1,5 or 3 T. Full texts of potentially relevant publications were read. Only articles with a clearly stated comparison between PMMR and autopsy results were included.</p><p>467 abstracts were identified; 14 papers met the inclusion criteria; data from 8 studies were extracted (467 cases). Of the 8 papers examined all regarded fetuses; only one analyzed also children &lt;16 years. The percentages of concordance for pathology and general concordance between the two techniques were equal or superior to 90% in 7/8 and over 90% in 5/8 studies, respectively. In 5/7 works where the rating of false positives (FP) and false negatives (FN) was possible, FP numbers were superior to FN ones: in 72/467 cases (15%) PMMR suggested pathologies not confirmed by autopsy, in 27/467 cases (6%) autopsy showed alterations not detected by PMMR.</p><p>Based on these results, PMMR might be considered a valid support/substitute to traditional autopsy for studying fetal central nervous system.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45371,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jofri.2017.10.001","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212478017300540","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

In this systematic review the diagnostic capabilities of post-mortem MR (PMMR) concerning brain and spinal cord abnormalities compared to traditional autopsy were analyzed.

A computerized online search of scientific articles was performed using Medline (PubMed) databases in June 2016 to identify all studies comparing PMMR with conventional autopsy in detecting fetal central nervous system alterations. Titles and abstracts were screened based on these exclusion criteria: no paediatric cases, neuroradiological alterations not reported, studies not in English, case reports and reviews, less than 10 subjects analyzed, PMMR performed on MR Units with magnetic field different from 1,5 or 3 T. Full texts of potentially relevant publications were read. Only articles with a clearly stated comparison between PMMR and autopsy results were included.

467 abstracts were identified; 14 papers met the inclusion criteria; data from 8 studies were extracted (467 cases). Of the 8 papers examined all regarded fetuses; only one analyzed also children <16 years. The percentages of concordance for pathology and general concordance between the two techniques were equal or superior to 90% in 7/8 and over 90% in 5/8 studies, respectively. In 5/7 works where the rating of false positives (FP) and false negatives (FN) was possible, FP numbers were superior to FN ones: in 72/467 cases (15%) PMMR suggested pathologies not confirmed by autopsy, in 27/467 cases (6%) autopsy showed alterations not detected by PMMR.

Based on these results, PMMR might be considered a valid support/substitute to traditional autopsy for studying fetal central nervous system.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
胎儿中枢神经系统的死后磁共振成像:系统综述
在这篇系统的综述中,分析了与传统尸检相比,死后磁共振(PMMR)对脑和脊髓异常的诊断能力。2016年6月,使用Medline (PubMed)数据库对科学文章进行计算机在线搜索,以确定PMMR与传统尸检在检测胎儿中枢神经系统改变方面的所有比较研究。根据以下排除标准筛选标题和摘要:无儿科病例、未报道神经放射学改变、非英文研究、病例报告和综述、分析的受试者少于10名、在磁场不同于1、5或3 t的磁共振单元上进行PMMR。只有明确说明PMMR和尸检结果比较的文章才被纳入。共检索到467篇摘要;14篇论文符合纳入标准;从8项研究(467例)中提取数据。在这8篇论文中,所有研究对象都是胎儿;只有一项研究分析了16岁的儿童。在7/8项研究中,两种技术的病理一致性和一般一致性的百分比等于或优于90%,在5/8项研究中分别大于90%。在可能出现假阳性(FP)和假阴性(FN)评分的5/7的作品中,假阳性(FP)值优于假阴性(FN)值:72/467例(15%)PMMR提示尸检未证实的病理,27/467例(6%)尸检显示PMMR未检测到的改变。基于这些结果,PMMR可能被认为是传统尸检研究胎儿中枢神经系统的有效支持/替代。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging
Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of computed radiography in osteometry: A comparison of digital imaging techniques and the effect of magnification Explanation for the contradiction between the results of Diallo et al. (doi:10.1016/j.jofri.2018.10.001) and Winklhofer et al. (doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000032) in differentiating ferromagnetic from nonferromagnetic bullets by means of the dual-energy index Juvenile versus adult: A new approach for age estimation from 3-dimensional analyses of the mandibular third molar apices Stature estimation in Iranian population from x-ray measurements of femur and tibia bones Sex identification from foramen magnum using computed tomography scanning in a sample of Egyptian population
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1