ArticleLa Radiologia medica2024
Preoperative identification from occult leiomyosarcomas in laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic myomectomy: accuracy of the ultrasound scoring system (PRESS-US).
Article in La Radiologia medica, 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.
- Dual-port laparoscopic myomectomy: a balanced yet potentially more optimal surgical approach.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the diagnostic performance and inter-observer agreement of a PREoperative sarcoma scoring based on ultrasound (PRESS-US) in differentiating uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) from leiomyoma (LM).
methodsWe conducted a retrospective evaluation of patients who underwent surgery and received standardized ultrasound examinations due to the presence of uterine myoma-like masses. Histological diagnosis was used as the reference standard. The masses were analyzed using morphological uterus sonographic assessment criteria, and the diagnostic accuracy of PRESS-US was evaluated using ROC curve analysis. Kappa (κ) statistics were used to assess the inter-observer agreement between a less experienced and an expert radiologist.
resultsAmong the 646 patients, 632 (97.8%) were diagnosed with LM, and 14 (2.2%) had uLMS. The malignancy rates for low-risk and high-risk patients were 0.35% and 13.48%, respectively. The optimal PRESS-US cutoff was 17.5, resulting in an AUC of 89.7% (95% CI, 0.79-1.00), with a sensitivity of 85.7% and a specificity of 87.8%. The inter-observer agreement between a less experienced and an expert radiologist was excellent (κ = 0.811, P < 0.001).
conclusionsPRESS-US provides effective risk stratification for uLMS for radiologists with different levels of experience, with high reliability. Subgrouping high-risk patients helps in better risk stratification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39476275What 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.