ReviewInsights into imaging2024
Endometriosis MR mimickers: T2-hypointense lesions.
Review in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gynecologic imaging errors and pitfalls: how to avoid misdiagnosis on pelvic MRI.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- Selected gynecologic MRI mimics and pitfalls: practical problem-solving pearls.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Head to toe: expand your diagnosis on routine imaging to include endometriosis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- The Hôtel-Dieu MRI Classification of Uterosacral Ligament Involvement in Endometriosis: A Pictorial Guide to Clinical Use.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Targeted nanoparticles for imaging and therapy of endometriosis†.Biology of reproduction · 2024Review
- Correction: Endometriosis MR mimickers: T2-hypointense lesions.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endometriosis is a common crippling disease in women of reproductive age. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered the cornerstone radiological technique for both the diagnosis and management of endometriosis. While its sensitivity, especially in deep infiltrating endometriosis, is superior to that of ultrasonography, many sources of false-positive results exist, leading to a lack of specificity. Hypointense lesions or pseudo-lesions on T2-weighted images include anatomical variants, fibrous connective tissues, benign and malignant tumors, feces, surgical materials, and post treatment scars which may mimic deep pelvic infiltrating endometriosis. False positives can have a major impact on patient management, from diagnosis to medical or surgical treatment. This educational review aims to help the radiologist acknowledge MRI criteria, pitfalls, and the differential diagnosis of deep pelvic infiltrating endometriosis to reduce false-positive results. Critical relevance statement MRI in deep infiltrating endometriosis has a 23% false-positive rate, leading to misdiagnosis. T2-hypointense lesions primarily result from anatomical variations, fibrous connective tissue, benign and malignant tumors, feces, surgical material, and post-treatment scars. Key points • MRI in DIE has a 23% false-positive rate, leading to potential misdiagnosis.• Anatomical variations, fibrous connective tissues, neoplasms, and surgical alterations are the main sources of T2-hypointense mimickers.• Multisequence interpretation, morphologic assessment, and precise anatomic localization are crucial to prevent overdiagnosis.• Gadolinium injection is beneficial for assessing endometriosis differential diagnosis only in specific conditions.
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.