ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of scar pregnancy.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. 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, 4 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
- 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
- The diagnostic potential of elastosonography in cesarean scar pregnancy.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2025Article
- Three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography in the evaluation of diminished ovarian reserve and premature ovarian failure.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the accuracy of three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of scar pregnancy. Methods: The records of 54 patients with scar pregnancy, who underwent three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), from June 2015 to November 2021 were reviewed. Surgery / histopathology of operative findings were analyzed as gold standard to compare the diagnosis of the two examination methods. Results: The detection rate of scar pregnancy by three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound was 94.44%, which was not significantly different from MRI (96.30%, Conclusion: Both three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound and MRI have good diagnostic efficacy in the diagnosis of scar pregnancy. Detection rates of scar pregnancy diagnostic criteria differ between the two methods, and if necessary, the two methods can be used together, to further improve the diagnostic accuracy of scar pregnancy.
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.