SynthesisMedicine2021
Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography on the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI-based scoring model to predict massive hemorrhage during dilatation and curettage in patients with cesarean scar pregnancy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Trial
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography: a potential way for diagnosing cesarean scar pregnancy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- 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
- The diagnostic potential of elastosonography in cesarean scar pregnancy.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background: There is still a debate on which imaging method is the best to diagnose cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Accordingly, this study aimed to analyze the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) on the detection of CSP based on current evidence in the literature.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Chinese Biomedical Documentation Service System, WanFang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched up to June 2020. The included studies were all comparisons of MRI and US in the diagnosis of CSP that adopted postoperative histological examination as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated for MRI and US.
resultsThirteen studies were included, with a total sample size of 948 patients. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and AUC of MRI in diagnosing CSP were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.91-0.95), 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75-0.89), 5.46 (95% CI, 3.70-8.05), 0.08 (95% CI, 0.06-0.11), and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.97), respectively; for US they were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.88), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.62-0.81), 3.06 (95% CI, 2.22-4.21), 0.23 (95% CI, 0.18-0.28), and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89), respectively.
conclusionWe found that both MRI and US effectively diagnosed CSP; however, MRI had a higher diagnostic performance in detecting CSP than US.
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.