Cited by 76Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudiesCongenital Anomalies and Fetal SurgeryCongenital Heart Disease Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of lung area in fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia

Open access
Jani, J., Peralta, C. F. A., Benachi, A., Deprest, J., Nicolaides, K. H.·2007·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the intra- and interobserver agreement of three different methods of measuring lung area in fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). METHODS: In 71 fetuses with isolated CDH at 21-33 weeks' gestation, the area of the contralateral lung was assessed by firstly, manual tracing of lung borders, secondly, multiplication of the longest diameter of the lung by its widest perpendicular diameter, and thirdly, multiplication of the anteroposterior (AP) diameter of the lung at the mid-clavicular line by the perpendicular diameter at the midpoint of the AP diameter (AP method). In 30 fetuses the measurements were made by two observers and Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare the measurement agreement and bias for each observer and between the two observers. RESULTS: The area obtained by the AP method was similar to that obtained by the manual tracing method, but the area by the longest diameter approach was bigger by 34.4% (95% CI, - 2.4% to 71.1%). The 95% confidence intervals of the difference in paired measurements of lung areas by the same observer and by two different observers were narrower in the manual tracing method than in the multiplying diameters methods. CONCLUSIONS: In CDH the most reproducible measurement of fetal lung area is provided by manual tracing of the limits of the lungs, rather than by multiplication of lung diameters.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.4051

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Jani, J., Peralta, C. F. A., Benachi, A., Deprest, J., & Nicolaides, K. H.
Affiliations
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
  • King's College Hospital (GB)
  • Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades (FR)
Corresponding author
Nicolaides, K. H.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-06-22
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
72-76
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W2010436889
Cited by
76
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Commission
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital Anomalies and Fetal Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Congenital Heart Disease Studies
Keywords
congenital diaphragmatic hernia, interobserver agreement, intraobserver agreement, fetal lung ultrasound, prenatal diagnosis
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Fetal Diseases, Gestational Age, Head, Hernia, Diaphragmatic, Humans, Lung, Lung Volume Measurements, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Regression Analysis, Observer Variation, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Hernias, Diaphragmatic, Congenital

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review