ArticleInsights into imaging2022
MRI in female pelvis: an ESUR/ESR survey.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06144762 (Precision Imaging for Early Detection and Targeted Treatment Monitoring in Pancreatic Cancer), which is not on this 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.
Precision Imaging for Early Detection and Targeted Treatment Monitoring in Pancreatic Cancer
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving diagnostic performance of O-RADS MRI: semi-quantitative intensity curves vs visual assessment of enhancement.European radiology · 2026Article
- Gynecologic imaging errors and pitfalls: how to avoid misdiagnosis on pelvic MRI.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- Deep learning reconstruction versus conventional parallel imaging for sagittal T2-weighted MRI in cervical cancer: a comparison of acceleration factors.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Performance of MRI for Detection of ≥pT1b Disease in Local Staging of Endometrial Cancer.Cancers · 2024Article
- Dissemination of endometrial cancer MRI staging guidelines among young radiologists: an ESUR Junior Network survey.Insights into imaging · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWhile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered the gold standard for the imaging of female pelvis, there is an ongoing debate about the most appropriate indications and optimal imaging protocols. The European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) launched a survey to evaluate the current utilization of female pelvic MRI in clinical practice.
methodsThe ESUR female imaging subgroup developed an online survey that was then approved by the ESR board and circulated among the ESR members. The questions in the survey encompassed training and experience, indications for imaging and MR imaging protocols, reporting styles and preferences. The results of the survey were tabulated, and subgroups were compared using χ
resultsA total of 5900 ESR members with an interest in both MRI and female pelvic imaging were invited to participate; 840 (14.23%) members completed the survey. Approximately 50% of respondents were academic radiologists (50.6%) and nearly 60% women (59.69%). One third of the respondents were subspecialized in Gynecological imaging. Nearly half of the survey participants were aware of the presence of ESUR guidelines for imaging of the female pelvis (47.1%). The adoption of the ESUR recommendations was higher among subspecialized and/or academic and/or senior and/or European radiologists compared to all others. The current ESUR recommendations about female pelvic MRI protocols were generally followed. However wide variations in practice were identified with respect to the use of contrast media.
conclusionFemale pelvic MRI protocol was generally following the ESUR recommendations, especially among subspecialized and academic radiologists. However, the fact that they are followed by only half of the participants highlights the need for wider awareness of these recommendations.
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.