Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35763096›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

Preoperative pelvic MRI and 2-[

Kristine E Fasmer, Ankush Gulati, Julie A Dybvik, Kari S Wagner-Larsen, Njål Lura, Øyvind Salvesen, David Forsse, Jone Trovik, Johanna M A Pijnenborg, Camilla Krakstad and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Predicting aggressive disease and poor outcome in endometrial cancer using preoperative [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Staging by imaging in gynecologic cancer and the role of ultrasound: an update of European joint consensus statements.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2024
    Review
  13. 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

11 authors.

Kristine E FasmerMohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. kristine.fasmer@helse-bergen.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8773-7870
Ankush GulatiMohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Julie A DybvikMohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Kari S Wagner-LarsenMohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Njål LuraMohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Øyvind SalvesenUnit for applied Clinical Research, Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
David ForsseDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Jone TrovikDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Johanna M A PijnenborgDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Camilla KrakstadDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Ingfrid S HaldorsenMohn Medical Imaging and Visualization Centre (MMIV), Department of Radiology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. ingfrid.haldorsen@helse-bergen.no.

Funding

Helse Vest 10221Helse Vest 12542Kreftforeningen 190202-2017Norges Forskningsråd 273280Norges Forskningsråd 311350Trond Mohn Foundation BFS2018TMT06
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study presents the diagnostic performance of four different preoperative imaging workups (IWs) for prediction of lymph node metastases (LNMs) in endometrial cancer (EC): pelvic MRI alone (IW1), MRI and [

methodsIn 361 EC patients, preoperative staging parameters from both pelvic MRI and [

resultsMRI and [

conclusionSelective [ KEY POINTS: • Imaging by MRI and [

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsFluorodeoxyglucose F18FemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisLymph NodesMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm StagingPositron-Emission TomographyPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyRadiopharmaceuticalsFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsEndometrial neoplasmsFluorodeoxyglucose F18Magnetic resonance imagingNeoplasm stagingPositron emission tomography computed tomography

Identifiers

PMID35763096
PMCPMC9755079

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.