ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Accuracy of Ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Preoperative Staging of Cervical Cancer-Analysis of Patients from the Prospective Study on Total Mesometrial Resection.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advanced Primary Cervical Carcinosarcoma With Ovarian and Peritoneal Metastases in a Premenopausal Woman: A Rare Case Report From Northern Tanzania.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- The Role of Imaging in Cervical Cancer Staging: ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines (Update 2023).Cancers · 2024Review
- Impact of mechanical engineering innovations in biomedical advancements.In vitro models · 2024Review
- Preoperative prediction of cervical cancer survival using a high-resolution MRI-based radiomics nomogram.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Integrated multiparametric ultrasound and biomarker assessment for clinical staging and treatment response prediction in cervical cancer: A single-center retrospective study.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markersArticle
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of ultrasonography with gynecologic examination performed by a gynecological oncologist and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpreted by a radiologist for the local and regional staging of patients with early-stage cervical cancer. The study was a single-site sub-analysis of the multi-institutional prospective, observational Total Mesometrial Resection (TMMR) Register Study, which included all consecutive study patients from Gdynia Oncology Center. Imaging results were compared with pathology findings. A total of 58 consecutive patients were enrolled, and 50 underwent both ultrasonography and MRI. The accuracy of tumor detection and measurement errors was comparable across ultrasonography and MRI. There were no significant differences between ultrasonography and MRI in the accuracy of detecting parametrial involvement (92%, confidence interval (CI) 84-100% vs. 76%, CI 64-88%,
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.