CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 121Maternal and fetal healthcareUterine Myomas and TreatmentsBlood transfusion and management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Magnetic resonance imaging is often misleading when used as an adjunct to ultrasound in the management of placenta accreta spectrum disorders

Einerson, Brett D., Rodriguez, Christina E., Kennedy, Anne M., Woodward, Paula J., Donnelly, Meghan A., Silver, Robert M.·2018·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.03.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Magnetic resonance imaging is reported to have good sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum disorders, and is often used as an adjunct to ultrasound. But the additional utility of obtaining magnetic resonance imaging to assist in the clinical management of patients with placenta accreta spectrum disorders, above and beyond the information provided by ultrasound, is unknown.Objective We aimed to determine whether magnetic resonance imaging provides data that may inform clinical management by changing the sonographic diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum disorders.Study design In all, 78 patients with sonographic evidence or clinical suspicion of placenta accreta spectrum underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen and pelvis in orthogonal planes through the uterus utilizing T1- and T2-weighted imaging sequences at the University of Utah and the University of Colorado from 1997 through 2017. The magnetic resonance imaging was interpreted by radiologists with expertise in diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum who had knowledge of the sonographic interpretation and clinical risk factors for placenta accreta spectrum disorders. The primary outcome was a change in diagnosis from sonographic interpretation that could alter clinical management, which was defined a priori. Diagnostic accuracy was verified by surgical and histopathologic diagnosis at the time of delivery.Results A change in diagnosis that could potentially alter clinical management occurred in 28 (36%) cases. Magnetic resonance imaging correctly changed the diagnosis in 15 (19%), and correctly confirmed the diagnosis in 34 (44%), but resulted in an incorrect change in diagnosis in 13 (17%), and an incorrect confirmation of ultrasound diagnosis in 15 (21%). Magnetic resonance imaging was not more likely to change a diagnosis in the 24 cases of posterior and lateral placental location compared to anterior location (33% vs 37%, P = .84). Magnetic resonance imaging resulted in overdiagnosis in 23% and in underdiagnosis in 14% of all cases. When ultrasound suspected severe disease (percreta) in 14 cases, magnetic resonance imaging changed the diagnosis in only 2 cases. Lastly, the proportion of accurate diagnosis with magnetic resonance imaging did not improve over time (61-65%, P = .96 for trend) despite increasing volume and increasing numbers of changed diagnoses.Conclusion Magnetic resonance imaging resulted in a change in diagnosis that could alter clinical management of placenta accreta spectrum disorders in more than one third of cases, but when changed, the diagnosis was often incorrect. Given its high cost and limited clinical value, magnetic resonance imaging should not be used routinely as an adjunct to ultrasound in the diagnosis of placenta accreta spectrum until evidence for utility is clearly demonstrated by more definitive prospective studies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.03.013

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

Show all 18 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–121 of 121

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Einerson, B. D., Rodriguez, C. E., Kennedy, A. M., Woodward, P. J., Donnelly, M. A., & Silver, R. M.
Affiliations
  • Intermountain Healthcare (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Einerson, Brett D.
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-06
Volume
218
Issue
6
Pages
618.e1-618.e7
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ajog.2018.03.013
OpenAlex
W2791097462
Cited by
121
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 10
FWCI
15.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2019-01-01)
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Intermountain Healthcare
  • University of Utah
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood transfusion and management
Keywords
placenta accreta spectrum, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, diagnostic accuracy, clinical management, overdiagnosis, placental location, diagnostic imaging in pregnancy, uterine imaging, histopathological confirmation, cost-effectiveness of imaging, perinatal outcomes, cesarean hysterectomy, placental abruption, postpartum hemorrhage, preterm birth, placental insufficiency
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Adult, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Placenta Accreta, Pregnancy, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Ultrasonography, Prenatal, Disease Management

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