Cited by 66Maternal and fetal healthcarePregnancy and preeclampsia studiesUterine Myomas and Treatments

The MRI features of placental adhesion disorder and their diagnostic significance: systematic review

Open access
Rahaim, N.S.A., Whitby, E.H.·2015·Clinical Radiology

Abstract

Aim To identify the most frequently used MRI features in the diagnosis of placenta adhesion disorder (PAD) in the antenatal period and their significance.Materials and methods The online databases Medline via PubMed and Ovid, Google Scholar, and Scopus were searched using the keywords and subject headings MRI*, magnetic resonance imaging*, prenatal diagnosis and placenta accreta*, morbidly adherent placenta* or placenta. Cases where MRI was carried out at/after 20 weeks gestation with detailed information available in relation to criteria and sequences used were included in the review. Exclusion criteria were case report study and studies that used intravenous contrast agents. Information regards sensitivity and specificity for each feature was taken, or calculated where possible, from the papers. Any new features were identified. The overall contribution of each feature to the diagnostic process was noted.Results Six hundred and fourteen potentially relevant articles were identified of which only 11 met the inclusion criteria. The commonest MRI criteria used were T2 dark intraplacental bands, heterogeneity of placenta, abnormal uterine bulging, and disruption of the uteroplacental zone. A newly described criterion is disorganised vasculature of placenta. MRI sensitivity and specificity varied between 75-100% and 65-100% respectively.Conclusion MRI diagnosis of PAD relies on unstandardised criteria of diagnosis that enable systematic image interpretation of invasion status in all studies and enable the reproducibility. However, it is still has a high diagnostic accuracy and frequently aids in surgical planning, emphasising its value in supporting ultrasound. Most studies are of a small sample size. Additional multicentre studies are recommended to enhance the generalisability of the findings and asses the value of the newly described criteria.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.crad.2015.04.010

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The main MRI features of placenta accreta include abnormal uterine bulging, dark intraplacental bands on T2-weighted imaging, heterogeneous signal intensity within the placenta, disorganised vasculature of placenta and disruption of the uteroplacental zone.

    “The main MRI features of placenta accreta include abnormal uterine bulging, dark intraplacental bands on T2-weighted imaging, heterogeneous signal intensity within the placenta, disorganised vasculature of placenta and disruption of the uteroplacental zone.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [33]33. Gynecologists TACoOa. Committee opinion number 529. Obstet Gynecol July 2012;120:207e11.
  2. [40]40. Mansour SME, Elkhyat WM. Placenta previaeaccreta: do we need MR imaging? Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2011;42:433e522. Epub 422.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rahaim, N. S. A., & Whitby, E. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Whitby, E.H.
Venue
Clinical Radiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-09
Volume
70
Issue
9
Pages
917-925
ISSN
0009-9260 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1927303195
Cited by
66
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
Keywords
placenta accreta, placenta previa, placenta percreta, prenatal MRI, prenatal diagnosis, placental heterogeneity, placental vasculature, diagnostic accuracy, surgical planning
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Placenta Diseases, Pregnancy

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