Abstract：
Adequate reference ranges of size of the corpus callosum (CC) are necessary to improve characterization of CC abnormalities and parental counseling. The objective of this study was to evaluate the methodology used in studies developing references charts for CC biometry.
We conducted a systematic review of studies on fetal CC biometry using a set of predefined quality criteria of study design, statistical analysis and reporting methods. We included observational studies whose primary aim was to create ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging charts for CC size in a normal population of fetuses. Studies were scored against a predefined set of independently agreed methodological criteria, and an overall quality score was given for each study.
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality scores ranged between 17.4% and 95.7%. The greatest potential for bias was noted for the following items: sample selection and sample-size calculation, as only 17% of the studies were population-based and had consecutive or random recruitment of patients and with a justification of the sample size; number of measurements obtained for CC biometry, as only 17% of the studies performed more than one measurement per fetus and per scan; and description of characteristics of the study population, as only 8% of the studies clearly reported a minimum dataset of demographic characteristics.
Our review demonstrates substantial heterogeneity in methods and final biometric values of the fetal CC across the evaluated studies. The use of uniform methodology of the highest quality is essential in order to define a \'short\' CC and provide appropriate parental counseling. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
We conducted a systematic review of studies on fetal CC biometry using a set of predefined quality criteria of study design, statistical analysis and reporting methods. We included observational studies whose primary aim was to create ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging charts for CC size in a normal population of fetuses. Studies were scored against a predefined set of independently agreed methodological criteria, and an overall quality score was given for each study.
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality scores ranged between 17.4% and 95.7%. The greatest potential for bias was noted for the following items: sample selection and sample-size calculation, as only 17% of the studies were population-based and had consecutive or random recruitment of patients and with a justification of the sample size; number of measurements obtained for CC biometry, as only 17% of the studies performed more than one measurement per fetus and per scan; and description of characteristics of the study population, as only 8% of the studies clearly reported a minimum dataset of demographic characteristics.
Our review demonstrates substantial heterogeneity in methods and final biometric values of the fetal CC across the evaluated studies. The use of uniform methodology of the highest quality is essential in order to define a \'short\' CC and provide appropriate parental counseling. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
摘要：
目的：有足够的call体（CC）大小参考范围对于更好地表征CC异常和改善父母咨询是必要的。这项研究的目的是评估用于开发CC生物统计学的不同参考图表的方法。
方法：我们使用一组预定义的研究设计质量标准对胎儿CC生物测量研究进行了系统回顾，统计分析和报告方法。我们包括观察性研究，其主要目的是为正常胎儿群体中CC的大小创建超声或MRI图。根据一组预定义的独立商定的方法学标准对研究进行评分，并对每个研究进行总体质量评分。
结果：12项研究符合纳入标准。质量评分介于17.4%和95.6%之间。在以下领域中发现了最大的偏倚可能性：“样本选择”和“样本量计算”，其中只有17％的研究是基于人群的研究，具有连续或随机招募患者的理由。样本量；“CC生物识别技术的测量数量”，其中只有17％的研究对每个胎儿和每次扫描进行了更多的测量；“对研究人群的特征的描述清楚地报告了最少9％的人口统计学研究。”
结论：我们的综述显示了胎儿CC测量的方法和最终生物测量值的显著异质性。为了定义“短”CC并提供适当的父母咨询，使用最高质量的统一方法至关重要。本文受版权保护。保留所有权利。
方法：我们使用一组预定义的研究设计质量标准对胎儿CC生物测量研究进行了系统回顾，统计分析和报告方法。我们包括观察性研究，其主要目的是为正常胎儿群体中CC的大小创建超声或MRI图。根据一组预定义的独立商定的方法学标准对研究进行评分，并对每个研究进行总体质量评分。
结果：12项研究符合纳入标准。质量评分介于17.4%和95.6%之间。在以下领域中发现了最大的偏倚可能性：“样本选择”和“样本量计算”，其中只有17％的研究是基于人群的研究，具有连续或随机招募患者的理由。样本量；“CC生物识别技术的测量数量”，其中只有17％的研究对每个胎儿和每次扫描进行了更多的测量；“对研究人群的特征的描述清楚地报告了最少9％的人口统计学研究。”
结论：我们的综述显示了胎儿CC测量的方法和最终生物测量值的显著异质性。为了定义“短”CC并提供适当的父母咨询，使用最高质量的统一方法至关重要。本文受版权保护。保留所有权利。
