ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
The role of cervical elastography in the differential diagnosis of preinvasive and invasive lesions of the cervix.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic and clinical utility of ultrasound elastography for uterine cervical neoplasms-a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Pooled it
- Ultrasound Elastography in the Diagnosis and Management of Uterine Pathologies: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the role of cervical elastography in the differential diagnosis of preinvasive and invasive lesions of the cervix. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 95 women participated in this prospective study and were divided into the following groups: 19 healthy subjects (group 1) with normal cervicovaginal smear (CVS) and negative human papillomavirus test (HPV DNA), 19 women with normal cervical biopsy and normal final pathological result of cervical biopsy (group 2), 19 women with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) (group 3), 19 women with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) (group 4), and 19 women with cervical cancer (group 5). Clinical, demographic, histopathological, and elastographic results were compared between these groups.
resultsComparing groups, age (40.42 ± 8.31 vs. 39.53 ± 8.96 vs. 38.79 ± 9.53 vs. 40.74 ± 7.42 vs. 54.63 ± 12.93, p < 0.001 respectively), gravida (1.74 ± 1.33 vs. 2.16 ± 1.68 vs. 2.21 ± 1.96 vs. 2.53 ± 1.93 vs. 4.63 ± 2.17 p < 0.001 respectively), parity (1.37 ± 0.68 vs. 1.68 ± 1.20 vs. 1.58 ± 1.30 vs. 2.00 ± 1.67 vs. 3.37 ± 1.61, p < 0.001 respectively), and the proportion of patients at menopause (10.5% vs., 15.8% vs. 10.5% vs. 5.3% vs. 57.9%, p < 0.01 respectively), a statistically significant difference was found (Table 1). However, no statistically significant difference was found in the number of abortions, BMI, mode of delivery, smoking, additional disease status, history of surgery, and family history (p > 0.05) (Table 2. As a result of the applied roc analysis, mean cervical elastographic stiffness degree (ESD) was found to be an influential factor in predicting cervical cancer (p < 0.05). The mean cut-off value was 44.65%, with a sensitivity of 94.7% and a specificity of 96.1% (Table 7).
conclusionMeasurement of ESD by elastography is a low-cost, easily applicable, and non-invasive indicator that can distinguish cervical cancer from normal cervical and preinvasive lesions. However, it is unsuitable for determining preinvasive cervical lesions from normal cervix.
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.