ArticleAustralasian journal of ultrasound in medicine2022
How long does a transvaginal ultrasound examination for endometriosis take in comparison to a routine transvaginal ultrasound examination?
Article in Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transvaginal Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Endometriosis: Current Practices and Barriers in Australian Sonographers.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2025Article
- Advances in Imaging for Assessing Pelvic Endometriosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Transvaginal Ultrasound in the Diagnosis and Assessment of Endometriosis-An Overview: How, Why, and When.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Quality and quantification: Is it time to rethink?Australasian journal of ultrasound in 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to determine the additional time needed to perform an endometriosis transvaginal ultrasound (eTVUS) compared to routine transvaginal ultrasound (rTVUS).
methodsA retrospective case-control study was performed. The study group included 199 eTVUS performed between September 2019 and September 2020. The control group comprised 105 consecutive rTVUS studies performed in the same time period. The time stamps on the ultrasound images of all cases in both groups were reviewed to determine the time taken to perform each study. Mean, median, minimum and maximum scan times for both groups were calculated as was percentage difference between scan times. A two-tailed, unpaired t-test of the normalised data and a Mann-Whitney U test assessing time difference of scans between two groups were performed with P value <0.05 considered statistically significant.
resultsPerforming eTVUS took significantly longer than rTVUS with increases in the mean (8.4 vs 13.8 min, 64%), median (7 vs 12 min, 71%), minimum (4 vs 7 min, 75%) and maximum (19 vs 42 min, 121%) scan times. The Mann-Whitney U test indicated a statistically significant difference in the median scan times (5.0, CI 4.0-6.0), P < 0.001. An independent t-test of the normalised data revealed a significantly larger mean scan time for eTVUS than rTVUS, Mean = 9.05 95%CI [13.17-4.94], t(302) = 4.327, P < 0.001.
conclusionEndometriosis transvaginal ultrasound added an average 5.4 min to rTVUS, which is statistically significant. For ultrasound departments wanting to offer this technique, doubling the scan time allocated to perform a transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) is suggested.
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.