Observational studyInternational urogynecology journal2021
Differential diagnosis of middle compartment pelvic organ prolapse with transperineal ultrasound.
Observational study in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Graph Attention Network-Based Multimodal Auxiliary Intelligent Grading Model for Uterine Prolapse Severity.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Improving Diagnostic Accuracy for Surgical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Sequential Protocol Combining POP-Q Examination and Transperineal Ultrasound.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence to Determine Correct Midsagittal Plane in Dynamic Transperineal Ultrasound.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2025Observational
- Ultrasound Diagnosis of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Using Artificial Intelligence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Applicability of Deep Learning to Dynamically Identify the Different Organs of the Pelvic Floor in the Midsagittal Plane.International urogynecology journal · 2024Observational
- Use of transrectal high-frequency ultrasound in assessment of middle compartment prolapse.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Interobserver variability of ultrasound measurements for the differential diagnosis of uterine prolapse and cervical elongation without uterine prolapse.International urogynecology journal · 2022Observational
- Predictive Model for the Diagnosis of Uterine Prolapse Based on Transperineal Ultrasound.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Observational
- 2D ultrasound diagnosis of middle compartment prolapse: a multicenter study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to identify the best parameter (pubis-cervix measurement, pubis-uterine fundus measurement or pubis-pouch of Douglas measurement) on transperineal ultrasound, based on the difference between measurements taken at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver, for presurgical differential diagnosis between uterine prolapse (UP) and cervical elongation (CE) without UP.
methodsA prospective observational study of 60 consecutively recruited patients who underwent corrective surgery of the middle compartment (UP or CE without UP). A transperineal ultrasound was performed, and the descent of the pelvic organ was measured in relation to the posteroinferior margin of the pubis in the midsagittal plane, referencing the uterine fundus, pouch of Douglas and the cervix at rest and with the Valsalva test.
resultsReceiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for the three evaluated measures, based on the difference between rest and Valsalva, for the diagnosis of UP. For the pubis-cervix distance, an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.59 was obtained; for the pubis-uterine fundus distance, the AUC was 0.81; and for the pubis-pouch of Douglas distance, the AUC was 0.69. Based on the best AUC (the difference in the pubis-uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver), a cut-off point of 15 mm was established for the diagnosis of UP (sensitivity: 75%; specificity: 95%; positive predictive value: 86%; and negative predictive value: 89%).
conclusionA difference of ≥15 mm in the pubis-uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver is useful for differentiating UP from CE without UP by ultrasound.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.