ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2025
Reappraisal and refined diagnosis of ultrasonography and histological findings for hydatidiform moles: a multicentre retrospective study of 821 patients.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Placental mesenchymal dysplasia: diagnostic and management insights from a case report and literature review.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Review
- Patch-to-slide fusion deep learning model for histological diagnosis of early pregnancy loss including hydatidiform mole.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Frequency of molar pregnancies in a tertiary care hospital: A review of pathology department records.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsSpecific identification of a hydatidiform mole (HM) and subclassification of a complete hydatidiform mole (CHM) or partial hydatidiform mole (PHM) are critical. This study aimed to reappraise the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography and histology with a refined diagnosis.
methodsThis was a retrospective, multicentre cohort study of 821 patients with histologically suspected HM specimens. Refined diagnostic algorithms with p57 immunohistochemistry and short tandem repeat (STR) genotyping were performed and used as the true standard for assessing the diagnostic performance of the original ultrasonography and morphology methods. The diagnostic performance was calculated using accuracy, agreement rate, sensitivity and the positive predictive value (PPV) compared with refined diagnostic results.
resultsOf the 821 histologically suspected HM cases included, 788 (95.98%) were successfully reclassified into 448 CHMs, 213 PHMs and 127 non-molar (NM) abortuses. Ultrasonography showed an overall accuracy of 44.38%, with a sensitivity of 44.33% for CHM and 37.5% for PHM. The overall classification accuracy of the original morphological diagnosis was 65.97%. After exclusion of the initially untyped HMs, the overall agreement rate was 59.11% (κ=0.364, p<0.0001) between the original and refined diagnoses, with a sensitivity of 40.09% and PPV of 96.05% for diagnosing CHMs and a sensitivity of 84.98% and a PPV of 45.59% for diagnosing PHMs. The interinstitutional variability of morphology in diagnosing HMs was significant among the 15 centres (range, 8.33%-100.00%, p<0.0001).
conclusionThe current diagnosis of HM based solely on ultrasound or morphology remains problematic, and ancillary techniques, particularly p57 immunohistochemistry and DNA genotyping, should be integrated into routine practice as much as possible.
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.