Observational studyEuropean radiology2024
Diagnostic MRI for deep pelvic endometriosis: towards a standardized protocol?
Observational study in European radiology, 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pelvic nerve endometriosis: MRI features and key findings for surgical decision.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic efficacy of an MRI protocol and patient preparation in detecting deep pelvic endometriosis (DPE). MATERIAL AND
methodsThe cohort is from the ENDOVALIRM database, a multicentric national retrospective study involving women who underwent MRI followed by pelvic surgery for endometriosis (reference standard). Two senior radiologists independently analyzed MRI findings using the deep pelvic endometriosis index (dPEI) to determine lesion locations. The study evaluated the impact of bowel preparation, vaginal and rectal opacification, MRI unit type (1.5-T or 3-T), additional sequences (thin slice T2W or 3DT2W), and gadolinium injection on reader performance for diagnosing DPE locations. Fisher's exact test assessed differences in diagnostic accuracy based on patient preparation and MRI parameters.
resultsThe final cohort comprised 571 women with a mean age of 33.3 years (± 6.6 SD). MRI with bowel preparation outperformed MRI without bowel preparation in identifying torus/uterosacral ligament (USL) locations (p < 0.0001) and rectosigmoid nodules (p = 0.01). MRI without vaginal opacification diagnosed 94.1% (301/320) of torus/USL locations, surpassing MR with vaginal opacification, which diagnosed 85% (221/260) (p < 0.001). No significant differences related to bowel preparation or vaginal opacification were observed for other DPE locations. Rectal opacification did not affect diagnostic accuracy in the overall population, except in patients without bowel preparation, where performance improved (p = 0.04). There were no differences in diagnostic accuracy regarding MRI unit type (1.5-T/3-T), presence of additional sequences, or gadolinium injection for any endometriotic locations.
conclusionBowel preparation prior to MRI examination is preferable to rectal or vaginal opacification for diagnosing deep endometriosis pelvic lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Accurate diagnosis and staging of DPE are essential for effective treatment planning. Bowel preparation should be prioritized over rectal or vaginal opacification in MRI protocols. Optimizing MRI protocols for diagnostic performance with appropriate opacification techniques will help diagnose deep endometriosis more accurately. KEY POINTS: Evaluating deep endometriosis in collapsible organs such as the vagina and rectum is difficult. Bowel preparation and an absence of vaginal opacification were found to be diagnostically beneficial. Bowel preparation should be prioritized over rectal or vaginal opacification in MRI protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38958695What 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.