To compare the complementation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to prenatal ultrasound (US) with prenatal US alone in detecting orofacial clefts in high-risk fetuses.
Design
A network meta-analysis.
Setting
Literature retrieval in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library, and meta-analysis based on STATA 14.0.
Patients
Fetuses were at high-risk for orofacial clefts.
Interventions
Prenatal US and the complementation of MRI to prenatal US.
Main outcome measures
The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC).
Results
Thirteen studies involving 776 patients were included. Direct meta-analysis showed that the complementation of MRI to prenatal US did not differ from prenatal US in detecting orofacial clefts if the type of orofacial clefts was not distinguished. Subgroup analysis showed that the specificity of prenatal US for the detection of isolated cleft palate (CP) was lower than that of the complementation of MRI to prenatal US. Furthermore, network meta-analysis consistently suggested a comparable diagnostic value between prenatal US and the complementation of MRI to prenatal US. Moreover, subgroup analysis showed that the specificity of prenatal US was significantly lower than that of complementation of MRI to prenatal US for the detection of isolated CP.
Conclusions
MRI is more accurate than ultrasound in detecting cleft palate. Therefore, MRI should be offered if there is a fetus with a possible or ultrasound diagnosis of cleft palate, especially if the evaluation of cleft palate is deemed unsatisfactory after careful evaluation of the images.
EnsingSKleinrouwelerCEMaasSMBilardoCMVan der HorstCMPajkrtE. Influence of the 20-week anomaly scan on prenatal diagnosis and management of fetal facial clefts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(2):154-159.
2.
MaarseWRozendaalAMPajkrtEVermeij-KeersCMink van der MolenABvan den BoogaardMJ. A systematic review of associated structural and chromosomal defects in oral clefts: When is prenatal genetic analysis indicated?J Med Genet. 2012;49(8):490-498.
3.
SemerNBSullivanSRMearaJG. Plastic surgery and global health: How plastic surgery impacts the global burden of surgical disease. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63(8):1244-1248.
4.
AlloriACMullikenJBMearaJGShustermanSMarcusJR. Classification of cleft lip/palate: Then and now. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(2):175-188.
5.
MosseyPALittleJMungerRGDixonMJShawWC. Cleft lip and palate. Lancet. 2009;374(9703):1773-1785.
6.
ChristensenKMitchellLE. Familial recurrence-pattern analysis of nonsyndromic isolated cleft palate–a Danish Registry study. Am J Hum Genet. 1996;58(1):182190.
7.
StanierPMooreGE. Genetics of cleft lip and palate: Syndromic genes contribute to the incidence of non-syndromic clefts. Hum Mol Genet. 2004;13(Spec No 1):R73-R81.
8.
HannyKHde VriesIAHaverkampSJ, et al.Late detection of cleft palate. Eur J Pediatr. 2016;175(1):71-80.
9.
NaiduPYaoCAChongDKMageeWP, 3rd. Cleft palate repair: A history of techniques and variations. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022;10(3):e4019.
10.
RoyAARtshiladzeMAStevensKPhillipsJ. Orthognathic surgery for patients with cleft lip and palate. Clin Plast Surg. 2019;46(2):157-171.
11.
DavalbhaktaAHallPN. The impact of antenatal diagnosis on the effectiveness and timing of counselling for cleft lip and palate. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53(4):298-301.
12.
NagarajanMSharbidreKGBhabadSHByrdSE. MR Imaging of the fetal face: Comprehensive review. Radiographics. 2018;38(3):962-980.
13.
HanikeriMSavundraJGillettDWaltersMMcBainW. Antenatal transabdominal ultrasound detection of cleft lip and palate in Western Australia from 1996 to 2003. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(1):61-66.
14.
LaiGPWengXJWangMTaoZFLiaoFH. Diagnostic accuracy of prenatal fetal ultrasound to detect cleft palate in high-risk fetuses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Ultrasound Med. 2022;41(3):605-614.
15.
MaarseWBergéSJPistoriusL, et al.Diagnostic accuracy of transabdominal ultrasound in detecting prenatal cleft lip and palate: A systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(4):495-502.
16.
PistoriusLRHellmannPMVisserGHMalingerGPrayerD. Fetal neuroimaging: Ultrasound, MRI, or both?Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2008;63(11):733-745.
17.
van der Hoek-SniedersHEMvan den HeuvelAvan Os-MedendorpHKamalskiDMA. Diagnostic accuracy of fetal MRI to detect cleft palate: A meta-analysis. Eur J Pediatr. 2020;179(1):29-38.
18.
DabadieAQuarelloEDegardinN, et al.Added value of MRI for the prenatal diagnosis of isolated orofacial clefts and comparison with ultrasound. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2016;97(9):915-921.
19.
HigginsJPTThomasJJeaC. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane; 2021.
20.
McInnesMDFMoherDThombsBD, et al.Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: The PRISMA-DTA statement. Jama. 2018;319(4):388-396.
21.
HuttonBSalantiGCaldwellDM, et al.The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: Checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777-784.
22.
WhitingPFRutjesAWWestwoodME, et al.QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536.
23.
SCLP. Stata Statistical Software Release 9. Stata Press Publication; 2005.
24.
ChaimaniAHigginsJPMavridisDSpyridonosPSalantiG. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e76654.
25.
MbuagbawLRochwergBJaeschkeR, et al.Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):79.
26.
LinLZhangJHodgesJSChuH. Performing Arm-Based Network Meta-Analysis in R with the pcnetmeta Package. J Stat Softw. 2017;80(5):1-25.
27.
SpineliLMPandisN. Meta-analysis: Random-effects model. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020;157(2):280-282.
28.
LuGAdesAE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3105-3124.
29.
DerSimonianRLairdN. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-188.
30.
TuYK. Using generalized linear mixed models to evaluate inconsistency within a network meta-analysis. Value Health. 2015;18(8):1120-1125.
31.
HigginsJPJacksonDBarrettJKLuGAdesAEWhiteIR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: Concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(2):98-110.
32.
Yu-KangT. Node-Splitting generalized linear mixed models for evaluation of inconsistency in network meta-analysis. Value Health. 2016;19(8):957-963.
33.
LuGAdesAE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc.2006;101(474):447-459.
34.
SongFKhanKSDinnesJSuttonAJ. Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):88-95.
35.
BäumlerMFaureJMBigorreM, et al.Accuracy of prenatal three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of cleft hard palate when cleft lip is present. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(4):440-444.
36.
ChenMLChangCHYuCHChengYCChangFM. Prenatal diagnosis of cleft palate by three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001;27(8):1017-1023.
37.
ChmaitRPretoriusDJonesM, et al.Prenatal evaluation of facial clefts with two-dimensional and adjunctive three-dimensional ultrasonography: A prospective trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(4):946-949.
38.
DescampsMJGoldingSJSibleyJMcIntyreAAlveyCGoodacreT. MRI For definitive in utero diagnosis of cleft palate: A useful adjunct to antenatal care?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47(6):578-585.
39.
GindesLWeissmann-BrennerAZajicekM, et al.Three-dimensional ultrasound demonstration of the fetal palate in high-risk patients: The accuracy of prenatal visualization. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33(5):436-441.
40.
Laifer-NarinSSchlechtwegKLeeJ, et al.A comparison of early vs late prenatal MRI in the diagnosis of cleft palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal. 2018;55(1):60.
41.
Martinez-TenPAdiegoBIllescasTBermejoCWongAESepulvedaW. First-trimester diagnosis of cleft lip and palate using three-dimensional ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(1):40-46.
42.
SommerladMPatelNVijayalakshmiB, et al.Detection of lip, alveolar ridge and hard palate abnormalities using two-dimensional ultrasound enhanced with the three-dimensional reverse-face view. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(5):596-600.
43.
TianMXiaoLJianN, et al.Accurate diagnosis of fetal cleft lip/palate by typical signs of magnetic resonance imaging. Prenat Diagn. 2019;39(10):883-889.
44.
WangGBChenLGZhuXY, et al.MRI Findings of fetal cleft lip and palate. Chinese Journal of Radiology. 2010;44(2):152-155.
45.
WangLMLeungKYTangM. Prenatal evaluation of facial clefts by three-dimensional extended imaging. Prenat Diagn. 2007;27(8):722-729.
46.
ZhengWLiBZouYLouF. The prenatal diagnosis and classification of cleft palate: The role and value of magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(10):5600-5606.
47.
WangGShanRZhaoLZhuXZhangX. Fetal cleft lip with and without cleft palate: Comparison between MR imaging and US for prenatal diagnosis. Eur J Radiol. 2011;79(3):437-442.
48.
GaiSWangLZhengW. Comparison of prenatal ultrasound with MRI in the evaluation and prediction of fetal orofacial clefts. BMC Med Imaging. 2022;22(1):213.
49.
Bekiesińska-FigatowskaMBrągoszewskaHRomaniuk-DoroszewskaADuczkowskaAJaczyńskaRMaciejewskiTM. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the prenatal diagnosis of cleft lip and palate. Dev Period Med. 2014;18(1):27-32.
50.
ManganaroLTomeiAFierroF, et al.Fetal MRI as a complement to US in the evaluation of cleft lip and palate. Radiol Med. 2011;116(7):1134-1148.
51.
LevineD. Timing of MRI in pregnancy, repeat exams, access, and physician qualifications. Semin Perinatol. 2013;37(5):340-344.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
