Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29027404›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gynecologic oncology2017

Transvaginal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative assessment of myometrial infiltration in patients with endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Juan Luis Alcázar, Begoña Gastón, Beatriz Navarro, Rocío Salas, Juana Aranda, Stefano Guerriero

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2021
    Guideline
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Staging by imaging in gynecologic cancer and the role of ultrasound: an update of European joint consensus statements.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2024
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Juan Luis AlcázarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, School of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. jlalcazar@unav.es.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9700-0853
Begoña GastónDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3878-6806
Beatriz NavarroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, General Hospital, Lanzarote, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5572-7843
Rocío SalasDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital La Inmaculada, Huércal-Overa, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9039-6218
Juana ArandaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Badajoz, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0401-8235
Stefano GuerrieroDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1359-7155
Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Cagliari · ITCentro de Implantología Cirugía Oral y Maxilofacial · ESClinica Universidad de Navarra · ESComplejo Hospitalario de Navarra · ESHospital General Universitario de Albacete · ESHospital La Inmaculada · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting myometrial infiltration (MI) in endometrial carcinoma.

methodsAn extensive search of papers comparing TVS and MRI in assessing MI in endometrial cancer was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, and Cochrane Database from January 1989 to January 2017. Quality was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool.

resultsOur extended search identified 747 citations but after exclusions we finally included in the meta-analysis 8 articles. The risk of bias for most studies was low for most 4 domains assessed in QUADAS-2. Overall, pooled estimated sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing deep MI were 75% (95% confidence interval [CI]=67%-82%) and 82% (95% CI=75%-93%) for TVS, and 83% (95% CI=76%-89%) and 82% (95% CI=72%-89%) for MRI, respectively. No statistical differences were found when comparing both methods (p=0.314). Heterogeneity was low for sensitivity and high for specificity for TVS and MRI.

conclusionMRI showed a better sensitivity than TVS for detecting deep MI in women with endometrial cancer. However, the difference observed was not statistically significant.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingUltrasonographyEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMyometriumNeoplasm InvasivenessPreoperative CareSensitivity and SpecificityVaginaEndometrial NeoplasmsInfiltrationMagnetic Resonance ImagingMyometriumTransvaginalUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID29027404
PMCPMC5641536
OpenAlexW2753708117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.