First, Hb concentrations were not assessed within a predefined time after birth. However, all Hb measurements were per-formed within 6 h after birth, indicating severe neonatal anaemia. Second, MRI imaging was initially restricted to infants with a clinical indication, although MRI was also performed in patients with anaemia without serious co-morbidity. Although this may have caused a potential bias, clinical characteristics in infants with and without MRI data were not different. Third, a full neurodevelop-mental assessment was not performed routinely. It would therefore be desirable to have a follow-up in these patients at school age to study whether the white matter lesions are associated with school performance, as has previously been shown in survivors with white matter injury in the context of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy [13]. More insight in the association between patterns of damage and possible pathophysiological mechanisms, combined with neurological outcome, will hopefully provide more in-sight in how to predict future disabilities during the new-born period. Severe neonatal anaemia is associated with high neo-natal mortality and neonatal morbidity. Those who sur-vive perform relatively well when assessed at approxi-mately 2 years of age. MRI shows abnormalities in the basal ganglia and thal-ami in severely affected infants, and white matter lesions in most patients. However, it is difficult to distinguish between damage due to anaemia only and damage due to associated perinatal asphyxia. Due to the retrospective setup of this study and miss-ing data, results should be interpreted with caution. Pro-spectively collected data with a longer follow-up period are needed.Posterior limb of internal capsule: 0 = normal, 1 = reduced or asymmetrical signal intensity, and 2 = severe injury with reversed or abnormal signal intensity bilaterally on T1- and or T2-weighted images.Basal ganglia and thalami: 0 = normal, 1 = mild injury (focal abnormal signal intensity), 2 = moderate injury (multifocal abnor-mal signal intensity), and 3 = indicates severe injury (widespread abnormal signal intensity).White matter: 0 = normal, 1 = mild injury (long T1 and T2 in periventricular white matter only), 2 = long T1 and T2 in subcorti-cal WM and or focal punctate lesions or focal infarction, and 3 = severe widespread abnormalities including long T1 and T2, infarc-tion, and haemorrhage. Cortex: 0 = normal, 1 = mild (1–2 sites cortical highlighting/ decreased T1), 2 = moderate (3 sites involved) and 3 = severe (>3 sites). The American College of Radiology, with more than 30,000 members, is the principal organization of radiologists, radiation oncologists, and clinical medical physicists in the United States. The College is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science of radiology, improve radiologic services to the patient, study the socioeconomic aspects of the practice of radiology, and encourage continuing education for radiologists, radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and persons practicing in allied professional fields. The American College of Radiology will periodically define new practice parameters and technical standards for radiologic practice to help advance the science of radiology and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing practice parameters and technical standards will be reviewed for revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner, if indicated. Each practice parameter and technical standard, representing a policy statement by the College, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review and approval. The practice parameters and technical standards recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice parameter and technical standard by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. Revised 2018 (Resolution 39)* ACR–SPR PRACTICE PARAMETER FOR IMAGING PREGNANT OR POTENTIALLY PREGNANT ADOLESCENTS AND WOMEN WITH IONIZING RADIATION PREAMBLE This document is an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate radiologic care for patients. Practice Parameters and Technical Standards are not inflexible rules or requirements of practice and are not intended, nor should they be used, to establish a legal standard of care1. For these reasons and those set forth below, the American College of Radiology and our collaborating medical specialty societies caution against the use of these documents in litigation in which the clinical decisions of a practitioner are called into question. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure or course of action must be made by the practitioner in light of all the circumstances presented. Thus, an approach that differs from the guidance in this document, standing alone, does not necessarily imply that the approach was below the standard of care. To the contrary, a conscientious practitioner may responsibly adopt a course of action different from that set forth in this document when, in the reasonable judgment of the practitioner, such course of action is indicated by the condition of the patient, limitations of available resources, or advances in knowledge or technology subsequent to publication of this document. However, a practitioner who employs an approach substantially different from the guidance in this document is advised to document in the patient record information sufficient to explain the approach taken. The practice of medicine involves not only the science, but also the art of dealing with the prevention, diagnosis, alleviation, and treatment of disease.