ReviewJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2024
Transrectal Ultrasound in Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review of its Current Application.
Review in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The use of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is established in prostate cancer but remains limited in cervical cancer. This systematic review aims to aggregate and describe the current use and advancements of TRUS in cervical cancer to identify gaps in the literature. Methods: This study follows a protocol registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024520099). It includes cervical cancer patients confirmed by histopathological analysis, where TRUS was used for diagnosis or as an adjunct to therapeutic procedures. Cross-sectional, case-control, cohort, or randomized controlled trials published in any language were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: From an initial pool of 3380 articles, 50 duplicates were removed, leaving 3330 unique articles. After screening titles and abstracts, 2932 articles were excluded, resulting in 31 studies included in the review. These studies involved 1635 women with cervical cancers, with a mean age of 52.9 years. Histopathologically, 81.2% were squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and 39.6% were at FIGO stage IIB. Nineteen studies were prospective, five retrospective, and fourteen used consecutive sampling. Only 10 articles had a fair rating, while the rest received poor ratings. Complications from post-TRUS included pain ( Conclusion: The recommended use of TRUS in cervical cancer is still limited in formal guidelines, and clinical research remains insufficient. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13224-024-02047-8.
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.