ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
Application and comparative analysis of 3.0T MRI and ultrasound in diagnosing CSP after caesarean section.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic and clinical value of multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging in cesarean scar pregnancy: a comparative study of sequence combinations.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effect of 3.0T MRI and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of uterine scar pregnancy (CSP) after caesarean section, and to compare their diagnostic value for CSP. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 60 patients with CSP treated in our hospital over a period of July 2018 to March 2020. All patients underwent 3.0T MRI, ultrasonography, and surgical termination of pregnancy and pathological analysis. The value of 3.0T MRI and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of CSP was analyzed.
results(1) The 60 patients were pathologically analyzed. Among these patients, 2 of whom were trophoblastic diseases, 5 were pregnancy abortion, 8 were cervical pregnancy, and 45 were CSP. (2) The results of ultrasound detection were 37 cases of CSP, 7 cases of misdiagnosis, and 8 cases of missed diagnosis; 3.0T MRI results were 44 cases of CSP, 1 case of misdiagnosis, and 1 case of missed diagnosis. (3) The sensitivity (97.78%), specificity (93.33%), coincidence rate (96.67%), positive diagnosis rate (97.78%), negative diagnosis rate (93.33%), AUC (0.973), and 95% CI (0.914-0.996) of 3.0T MRI in diagnosing CSP were significantly higher than those of ultrasound diagnosis (82.22%, 53.33%, 84.09%, 84.09%, 50%, 0.681, 0.051-0.776) (P<0.05).
conclusionThe coincidence rate of 3.0T MRI in the diagnosis of CSP after caesarean section is significantly better than that of ultrasound diagnosis, and it can be used to provide reference for clinical diagnosis of CSP after cesarean section.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34017569PMC8129349W3161466426What 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.