ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
Comparison of sensitivity and specificity of three-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound and conventional ultrasound in pelvic floor assessment after delivery.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of Transperineal 3-Dimensional Ultrasound in Evaluating Levator Ani Muscle Contraction During Female Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2026Article
- Epidural Anesthesia and Pelvic Floor Outcomes in Primiparas: A Retrospective Transperineal Ultrasound Study.International urogynecology journal · 2025Article
- Retrospective comparative cohort study of neovagina creation by modified Vecchietti-laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome.Annals of translational medicine · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was designed to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of the three-dimensional (3D) pelvic floor ultrasound and the conventional ultrasound in pelvic floor assessment after delivery.
methodsA total of 108 patients with pelvic floor dysfunction treated in our hospital were selected as the study group, and another 108 healthy subjects were included as the control group. Both groups were diagnosed by conventional ultrasound and 3D pelvic floor ultrasound, and confirmed with pathological findings. The diagnostic results of the conventional ultrasound and 3D pelvic floor ultrasound were compared, and the diagnostic conditions of various indicators in the two groups were compared.
resultsThe numbers of true positive cases and true negative cases diagnosed by the conventional ultrasound were 84 and 90, respectively, while the numbers of true positive cases and true negative cases diagnosed by the 3D pelvic floor ultrasound were 8 and 102, respectively (
conclusionThe 3D pelvic floor ultrasound is more accurate, specific and sensitive than the conventional ultrasound in the assessment of postpartum pelvic floor function, which is worthy of wide application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34786138PMC8581895W3213334488What 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.