ArticleJournal of ultrasound2022
Diagnostic value and agreement of transrectal in comparison with transvaginal sonography among women with abnormal uterine bleeding.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTransvaginal sonography (TVS) is not applicable for evaluating the endometrium in some cases with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) such as virgin women. The aim of the present study was to investigate the diagnostic value of transrectal sonography (TRS), as a non-invasive alternative for TVS, among women with AUB.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 40 women over 40 years of age with AUB first underwent TRS and then TVS. Endometrial biopsy was also performed as a gold standard method to evaluate endometrial pathologies. The findings of the two endometrial ultrasound methods were compared with the biopsy results. Also, the findings of the two methods were compared in terms of the agreement on other uterine markers and adnexal findings.
resultsThere was a high agreement between the findings of TVS and TRS for uterine size, endometrial thickness and homogeneity, endomyometrial junction, myometrial homogeneity, uterine lesions, uterine lesions size, ovarian size and ovarian echogenicity. When comparing the results of these two methods with biopsy findings, sensitivity, specificity as well as positive and negative predictive values of both methods were similar (82%, 100%, 100%, and 0%, respectively).
conclusionWhen it is not possible to use TVS in women with AUB, TRS is a suitable, non-invasive and inexpensive alternative method for evaluating the endometrium and other genital organs.
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.