You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Variation in prognosis given by fetomaternal units in fetuses with neurological abnormalities
  1. Anthony Hart1,
  2. Nicolas Embleton2,
  3. Cara Mooney3,
  4. Mike Bradburn3,
  5. Paul David Griffiths4
  1. 1 Paediatric Neurology, Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
  2. 2 Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  3. 3 School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  4. 4 Academic Radiology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Anthony Hart, Paediatric Neurology, Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield S10 5DD, UK; a.r.hart{at}sheffield.ac.uk

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2019-317517

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The ‘MRI to enhance the diagnosis of fetal developmental brain abnormalities in utero’ (MERIDIAN) study showed improved diagnostic accuracy and confidence for detecting fetal neurological abnormalities compared with ultrasound. The additional information provided by in utero MRI altered prognosis in 44% of women, although clinicians reported it changed prognosis in only 24%.1 2 The reasons for this discrepancy are not clear, and the MERIDIAN study did not report whether the neurodevelopmental prognoses given to women varied between clinicians or were accurate.

    We contacted one clinician at each of the MERIDIAN fetomaternal units and asked what percentage chance of normal neurodevelopmental outcome they would give pregnant women …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AH analysed the data and wrote the letter. NE reviewed the data, helped with interpretation and edited the final draft. CM helped collate the data, provide advice on interpretation and reviewed the final draft. MB is a statistician who commented on mathematical and statistical aspects of the letter and reviewed and edited the final draft. PDG had the idea for the study, collated the data, reviewed the analysis and provided advice and edited the final copy of the letter.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement There is no additional data to report with relation to the questions that were asked of obstetricians in fetal maternal units.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.