ArticleInsights into imaging2024
A new magnetic resonance imaging-based PUMCH classification system for congenital cervical malformations: devising a standardised diagnosis pathway.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo develop an innovative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based PUMCH (Peking Union Medical College Hospital) classification system aimed at standardising the diagnosis of congenital cervical malformations (CCMs) by identifying their distinctive MRI features.
methodsSeventy-nine consecutive patients with CCM underwent pre-treatment pelvic MRI; three experienced gynaecological radiologists retrospectively analysed these images. Qualitative assessments included Rock et al's classification; PUMCH classification; haematometra; cervical signal features; ovarian endometriosis; haematosalpinx; and uterine, vaginal, urinary, and musculoskeletal malformations. Quantitative assessments involved the uterine volume, sagittal cervical length, and maximum ovarian cross-sectional area. The surgical treatment types were also recorded. Statistical methods were used to incorporate differences in clinical features and surgical methods into our classification.
resultsMorphologically, CCMs were categorised into three types: type I (53%) was characterised by the presence of a cervix with visible cervical canals; type II (23%) featured an existing cervix with concealed cervical canals; and type III (24%) indicated cervical aplasia, which involves a blind end in the lower part of the uterine corpus. Haematometra was significantly more prevalent in patients with type I CCM than in those with type II (p < 0.001). There were three cervical signal patterns: no signal (27%), no evident layer differentiation (21%), and multi-layer differentiation with haematocele (52%). Most patients (94%) had complete vaginal atresia. Type I CCM patients had a higher likelihood of regaining normal uterovaginal anatomy compared to types II and III.
conclusionsOur proposed PUMCH classification system has a high potential for enhancing the efficiency of clinical diagnosis among patients with CCM. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The proposed new PUMCH classification promised to elevate the conventional diagnostic trajectory for congenital cervical malformations, offering a valuable framework to refine the selection and planning of surgical interventions, thereby enhancing overall clinical efficacy. KEY POINTS: Effective classification of congenital cervical malformations is desirable to optimise the diagnostic process. We presented a PUMCH classification of congenital cervical malformations using pelvic MRI. The new classification significantly aids clinical triage for congenital cervical malformations.
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.