Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

In utero magnetic resonance imaging improved diagnostic accuracy for the detection of fetal brain abnormalities when used as an adjunct to ultrasonography.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Paul D Griffiths 1,*, Michael Bradburn 2, Michael J Campbell 2, Cindy L Cooper 2, Nicholas Embleton 3, Ruth Graham 4, Anthony R Hart 5, Deborah Jarvis 1, Mark D Kilby 6,7, Mabel Lie 8, Gerald Mason 9, Laura Mandefield 2, Cara Mooney 2, Rebekah Pennington 10, Stephen C Robson 8, Allan Wailoo 10

1 Academic Unit of Radiology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
2 Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
3 Newcastle Neonatal Service, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
4 School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
5 Department of Perinatal and Paediatric Neurology, Sheffield Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
6 Centre for Women’s and Newborn Health, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
7 Fetal Medicine Centre, Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust (Birmingham Health Partners), Birmingham, UK
8 Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
9 Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
10 Health Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
* Corresponding author Email: p.griffiths@sheffield.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions