ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Sonographic Assessment of Uterine Biometry for the Diagnosis of Diffuse Adenomyosis in a Tertiary Outpatient Clinic.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uterine anteroposterior diameter predicts spontaneous pregnancy outcomes in women under 35 years with adenomyosis: a retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- How Reproducible Are the Ultrasound Features of Adenomyosis Defined by the Revised MUSA Consensus?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundto compare several uterine biometric parameters at transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) between adenomyosis and non-adenomyosis uteri and evaluate their role for the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis.
methodsprospective observational study conducted between the 1 February 2022 and the 30 April 2022. In this case, 56 patients with TVUS diagnosis of adenomyosis were included. A 1:1 ratio age and parity-matched group of non-adenomyosis patients was selected. We compared sonographic uterine biometric parameters (longitudinal (LD), anteroposterior (APD) and transverse (TD) diameters, volume, simple and complex diameter ratios) and investigated their diagnostic performance.
resultsall sonographic parameters were significantly different between the study groups, except for TD/(LD+APD). Optimal cut-off values of APD and LD/APD showed the best sensitivity and specificity. APD diameter equal or superior to 39.5 mm (95% CI, 36.2-42.8) had sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.57-0.80), specificity of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.59-0.82) and accuracy of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.66-0.84). LD/APD equal or inferior to 2.05 (95% CI, 1.96-2.13) showed sensitivity and specificity of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.57-0.80) each and accuracy of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62-0.81).
conclusionsseveral biometric uterine parameters at TVUS in fertile-aged women were statistically different between adenomyosis and non-adenomyosis uteri, though their optimal cut-off values showed low accuracy in diagnosing adenomyosis.
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.