ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
The diagnostic value of 3.0T MRI in cesarean scar pregnancy.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of isthmocele according to diagnostic hysteroscopy, transvaginal ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging in non-pregnant women: cross-sectional study.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Comparative study of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and classification of cesarean scar pregnancy.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Misdiagnosis analysis of uterine scar pregnancy after cesarean section.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- 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
- A comprehensive model combining radiomics and risk factors for predicting massive hemorrhage in cesarean scar pregnancy during dilatation and curettage.European journal of radiology open · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose was to evaluate the diagnostic value of 3.0T MRI in cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
methods56 patients with suspected CSP treated in our hospital from August 2018 to July 2020 were recruited as the study cohort and diagnosed using ultrasound and 3.0T MRI. With the pathological examination results as the gold standard and the ultrasound examination results as a comparison, the diagnostic value of 3.0T MRI was evaluated according to the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative misdiagnosis rates, etc. Results: The pathological examination showed that 33 patients were positive for CSP but the other 23 were negative. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 3.0T MRI in the CSP diagnoses were significantly higher than the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the ultrasound diagnoses (P<0.05), and the positive and negative misdiagnosis rates were significantly lower than the misdiagnosis rates of the ultrasound diagnosis (P<0.05). Moreover, the images from two patients showed that 3.0T MRI can provide clear images of the patients' lesion locations.
conclusionCompared with ultrasound diagnoses, 3.0TMRI has significant advantages in diagnosing CSP and has a high clinical value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34306362PMC8290699W3184027997What 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.