ArticleJournal of healthcare engineering2022
Comparison of Diagnostic Efficacy among Transvaginal Sonography, Transabdominal Sonography, and 3.0 T Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Early Cesarean Scar Pregnancy.
Article in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Caesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy in Early Gestation: A Scoping Review of Definitions and Diagnostic Approach.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography: a potential way for diagnosing cesarean scar pregnancy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 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
- 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
- MRI Assessment of Cesarean Scar Pregnancies: A Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic efficacy among transvaginal sonography (TVS), transabdominal sonography (TAS), and 3.0 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in early cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
methodsThe clinical data of 65 patients initially diagnosed with CSP in our hospital from November 2019 to November 2020 were selected for the retrospective analysis, and all patients received TVS, TAS, and 3.0 T MRI. Taking the pathological findings as the "gold standard", the diagnostic efficacy of different diagnostic modalities in early CSP was compared.
resultsIn terms of the AUC value, the result was 3.0 T MRI > TVS > TAS, and among the three diagnosis methods, 3.0 T MRI had the highest diagnostic specificity, and TVS and 3.0 T MRI had the highest sensitivity; other than intragestational hemorrhage, the detection rates of other signs of disease by TVS and TAS were significantly higher than 3.0 T MRI (
conclusion3.0 T MRI has better diagnostic efficacy in early CSP than TVS and TAS, while TVS and TAS work better in diagnosing uterine bleeding, plumule, yolk sac, and fetal heartbeat than 3.0 T MRI. The results are more beneficial to the guidance on selecting treatment modalities.
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.