ArticleCureus2024
Comparing the Diagnostic Efficacy of 3D Ultrasound and MRI in the Classification of Müllerian Anomalies.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The diagnostic value of high-resolution 3D T2-weighted MRI in preoperative evaluation and classification of Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich syndrome: a prospective study.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Missed Until Found: Diagnosis and Hysteroscopic Management of a Uterine Septum in a Woman With Primary Infertility.Cureus · 2026Article
- Article
- Type II Robert's Uterus Presenting as Long-Standing Secondary Subfertility: Diagnosis Confirmed by Combined Laparoscopy and Hysteroscopy in a Bangladeshi Patient.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Obstructed Hemivagina with Ipsilateral Renal Anomaly: Radiological Diagnosis, Outcome of Surgical Management and Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From Pelvis to Groin: Non-Communicating Rudimentary Uterine Horn and Endometriosis Presenting as an Inguinal Hernia in a Woman with a Solitary Pelvic Kidney.International journal of women's health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMüllerian anomalies significantly impact female reproductive health. This study aims to compare the diagnostic efficacy of three-dimensional ultrasound (3D-US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in detecting and classifying these anomalies.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 150 patients with Müllerian anomalies was conducted at Saveetha Medical College and Hospital from March 2018 to March 2024. MRI and 3D-US examinations were performed and analyzed independently by two radiologists. Anomalies were classified according to European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE)/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) and American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) guidelines.
resultsThe septate uterus was the most prevalent anomaly, observed in 53 patients (35.3%). MRI demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.92) compared to 3D-US (AUC 0.88). Significant associations were found between presenting symptoms and specific anomaly types (p < 0.05). Inter-rater reliability between the two radiologists, with respect to classification of anomalies, was high (Cohen's kappa 0.85). DISCUSSION: MRI's superior soft-tissue contrast and multiplanar capabilities make it the gold standard for evaluating complex uterine malformations. 3D-US offers valuable real-time imaging and is particularly effective in assessing septum characteristics. The combined use of MRI and 3D-US enhances diagnostic precision and facilitates tailored management strategies.
conclusionIntegrating MRI and 3D-US in clinical practice improves diagnostic accuracy and treatment planning for Müllerian anomalies, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes.
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.