Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24668009›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2014

MR diffusion imaging for preoperative staging of myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anita Andreano, Gilda Rechichi, Paola Rebora, Sandro Sironi, Maria Grazia Valsecchi, Stefania Galimberti

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 151 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Endometrial Cancer: A Daily Clinical Practice Guide for Radiologists.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anita AndreanoCenter of Biostatistics for Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, Via Cadore 48, Monza, MB, 20900, Italy.
Gilda Rechichi
Paola Rebora
Sandro Sironi
Maria Grazia Valsecchi
Stefania Galimberti
University of Milano-Bicocca · ITAzienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted (DW) MR imaging in detecting deep myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer, using surgical-pathological staging as reference standard.

methodsAfter searching a wide range of electronic databases and screening titles/abstracts, we obtained full papers for potentially eligible studies and evaluated according to predefined inclusion criteria. Quality assessment was conducted by adapting the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) checklist. From each study, we extracted information on diagnostic performance of DW and DCE sequences. After exploring heterogeneity, we adopted a bivariate generalized linear mixed model to compare the effect of the two MR sequences jointly on sensitivity and specificity.

resultsNine studies (442 patients) were considered. Significant evidence of heterogeneity was found only for specificity, both in DW and DCE imaging (I (2)  = 70.8 % and 70.6 %). Pooled sensitivity of DW and DCE was 0.86 and specificity did not significantly differ (p = 0.16) between the two sequences (DW = 0.86 and DCE = 0.82). No difference was found between 3-T and 1.5-T MR. There was no evidence of publication bias.

conclusionsMR diagnostic accuracy in presurgical detection of deep myometrial infiltration in endometrial cancer is high. DCE and DW imaging do not differ in sensitivity and specificity. KEY POINTS: Myometrial invasion is the most important morphological prognostic feature of endometrial cancer. MR diagnostic accuracy in presurgical detection of deep myometrial infiltration is high. MR examination including T2 and DCE imaging is considered the reference standard. DW imaging has been increasingly employed with heterogeneous results. This meta-analysis shows that DCE and DW do not differ in diagnostic accuracy.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImage EnhancementMyometriumNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingPreoperative CareSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID24668009
OpenAlexW2046927970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.