Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30972442›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019

Comparison of measurement systems for posterior vaginal wall prolapse on magnetic resonance imaging.

Bing Xie, Luyun Chen, Zhuowei Xue, Emily M English, Dee E Fenner, Kara Gaetke-Udager, Giselle E Kolenic, James A Ashton-Miller, John O DeLancey

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Ultrasound imaging of the perineal body: a useful clinical tool.International urogynecology journal · 2020
    Observational
  5. 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

9 authors.

Bing XieDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China.
Luyun ChenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Zhuowei XueShanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Emily M EnglishDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Dee E FennerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Kara Gaetke-UdagerDepartment of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Giselle E KolenicDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
James A Ashton-MillerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
John O DeLanceyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. delancey@med.umich.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-1012-7713

Funding

Research Education CoreP30AG024824 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Neil Alexander · 2004 to 2026
$29.2M
Which pelvic floor defects cause stress incontinence?P50HD044406 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DELANCEY, JOHN O.L. · 2002 to 2017
$17.1M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG024824NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD044406
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisA wide variety of reference lines and landmarks have been used in imaging studies to diagnose and quantify posterior vaginal wall prolapse without consensus. We sought to determine which is the best system to (1) identify posterior vaginal wall prolapse and its appropriate cutoff values and (2) assess the prolapse size.

methodsThis was a secondary analysis of sagittal maximal Valsalva dynamic MRI scans from 52 posterior-predominant prolapse cases and 60 comparable controls from ongoing research. All eight existing measurement lines and a new parameter, the exposed vaginal length, were measured. Expert opinions were used to score the prolapse sizes. Simple linear regressions, effect sizes, area under the curve, and classification and regression tree analyses were used to compare these reference systems and determine cutoff values. Linear and ordinal logistic regressions were used to assess the effectiveness of the prolapse size.

resultsAmong existing parameters, "the perineal line-internal pubis," a reference line from the inside of the pubic symphysis to the front tip of the perineal body (cutoff value 0.9 cm), had the largest effect size (1.61), showed the highest sensitivity and specificity to discriminate prolapse with area under the curve (0.91), and explained the most variation (68%) in prolapse size scores. The exposed vaginal length (cutoff value 2.9) outperformed all the existing lines, with the largest effect size (2.09), area under the curve (0.95), and R-squared value (0.77).

conclusionsThe exposed vaginal length performs slightly better than the best of the existing systems, for both diagnosing and quantifying posterior prolapse size. Performance characteristics and evidence-based cutoffs might be useful in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedReference ValuesUterine ProlapseVaginaCutoffsDynamic MRIExposed vaginal lengthMagnetic resonance imagingPosterior vaginal wall prolapseReference line

Identifiers

PMID30972442
PMCPMC6642838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.