Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35627376›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

MRI and Adenomyosis: What Can Radiologists Evaluate?

Veronica Celli, Miriam Dolciami, Roberta Ninkova, Giada Ercolani, Stefania Rizzo, Maria Grazia Porpora, Carlo Catalano, Lucia Manganaro

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Veronica CelliDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2331-5235
Miriam DolciamiDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8322-8435
Roberta NinkovaDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Giada ErcolaniDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1344-4527
Stefania RizzoClinica di Radiologia EOC, Istituto Imaging della Svizzera Italiana (IIMSI), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5151-0866
Maria Grazia PorporaDepartment of Maternal and Child Health and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5556-3933
Carlo CatalanoDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Lucia ManganaroDepartment of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9037-9904
Policlinico Umberto I · ITIstituto Imaging della Svizzera Italiana

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uterine adenomyosis is a common benign condition defined by the presence of heterotopic endometrial glands and stroma within the myometrium. Adenomyosis is often related to infertility and other adverse pregnancy outcomes. Modern imaging techniques allow the non-invasive diagnosis of adenomyosis and, in this framework, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) has assumed a central role due to its high diagnostic accuracy in the detection of adenomyosis. Currently, there is still a lack of international consensus on adenomyosis diagnostic criteria and classification, despite the fact that an agreed reporting system would promote treatment outcomes and research. This review aims to emphasize the important contribution of MRI to the diagnosis of adenomyosis and to highlight how, thanks to the great tissue differentiation provided by MRI, it is possible to identify the main direct (cystic component) and indirect (junctional zone features) signs of adenomyosis and to distinguish its various subtypes according to different MRI-based classifications. We also explored the main MRI criteria to identify the most common pitfalls and differential diagnoses of adenomyosis, whose features should be considered to avoid misdiagnosis.

Indexed as

AdenomyosisEndometriumFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMyometriumPregnancyRadiologistsadenomyosisclassificationendometriosismagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID35627376
PMCPMC9140978
OpenAlexW4280575001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.