Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39894922›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2025

Clinical utility of ultrasonography in pediatric and adolescent gynecology: retrospective review of 1313 ultrasound examinations.

N Cooper, H Meehan, K Linton-Reid, J Barcroft, J Danin, M Seah, S Sadigh, N Bharwani, S Sur, C Fotopoulou and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

N CooperQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5828-8014
H MeehanQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
K Linton-ReidDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
J BarcroftQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
J DaninImaging, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
M SeahImaging, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
S SadighImaging, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
N BharwaniDivision of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
S SurQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
C FotopoulouQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
C LandolfoQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
J YazbekQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
S SasoQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
D TimmermanDepartment of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK.
T BourneQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
M Al-MemarQueen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, West London Gynaecological Cancer Centre, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesUltrasound is the first-line imaging modality of the pelvis in the pediatric and adolescent gynecology (PAG) population. Ultrasound findings in pre- and postpubertal PAG patients differ from those in adults. Diagnostic models for adnexal pathology have not been validated in this cohort. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate normative findings and the incidence of pathology in this cohort. The secondary aim was to assess the performance of expert opinion alone, as well as using retrospective application of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules (SRs) and benign descriptors (BDs) in those found to have an adnexal mass.

methodsThis was a retrospective review of pelvic ultrasound examinations performed in patients < 18 years of age from January 2017 to July 2021 in one expert center in the UK. Analysis was performed on three age groups: neonatal (aged < 1 year), premenarchal (aged ≥ 1 year) and postmenarchal. The study was locally approved as an audit (GRM_082). Expert review of images of ovarian masses was performed using retrospective application of the IOTA-SRs and IOTA-BDs.

resultsIn total, data on 1429 pelvic ultrasound examinations were retrieved, of which 116 were excluded, resulting in the inclusion of 1313 ultrasound images (1145 patients). The median age at the first ultrasound scan was 2 days after birth in the neonatal group (n = 20), 8.8 years in the premenarchal group (n = 124) and 16.1 years in the postmenarchal group (n = 961). The status of menarche was unknown in a further 40 patients. Normative ultrasound findings were in keeping with those in the existing literature. Uterine anomalies were seen in 14 (1.2%) patients. Endometrial pathology was rare, with five cases of gestational trophoblastic disease. The most frequent indication for ultrasound scan for each group were a known medical condition in neonates (n = 11 (55.0%)), suspected precocious puberty in premenarchal girls (n = 38 (30.6%)) and abnormal vaginal bleeding in postmenarchal girls (n = 504 (52.4%)). Polycystic ovarian appearances were described in 150 (15.6%) postmenarchal girls. Adnexal pathology was identified in 102 (8.9%) participants on initial ultrasound: four neonates, three premenarchal and 95 postmenarchal patients. Benign cystadenomas and hemorrhagic cysts were the most common adnexal mass type in all groups. Final outcomes were available for 79/95 masses in the postmenarchal group, none of which were malignant. The IOTA-SRs, IOTA-BDs, expert opinion and standard ultrasound reporting could characterize as benign 96.2%, 87.3%, 98.7% and 77.2% of the masses, respectively, all with a specificity of 100%. Eleven patients underwent 12 surgeries overall (three oophorectomies, six cystectomies and three cyst aspirations), with 11 out of 12 masses classified as benign based on retrospective expert assessment.

conclusionsUltrasound is effective for assessment of the female pelvis in the PAG population. Adnexal masses are common, but few require surgical intervention and most resolve expectantly. The IOTA-BDs and IOTA-SRs maintain their performance in this population. Larger studies are required for the prospective validation of diagnostic models which may aid a fertility-sparing approach to care. © 2024 The Author(s). Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Adnexal DiseasesAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleGynecologyHumansInfantInfant, NewbornOvarian NeoplasmsPelvisRetrospective StudiesUltrasonographyUnited Kingdomadolescentdiagnostic imagingpediatricreproductive medicinesonography

Identifiers

PMID39894922
PMCPMC11788462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.