ArticleScientific reports2025
The clinical efficacy and influencing factors of uterine artery embolization in the treatment of different types of uterine adenomyosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound Findings After Uterine Artery Embolisation: Pictorial Essay and Clinical Validation.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Uterine artery embolization for the treatment of symptomatic adenomyosis: a systematic review.CVIR endovascular · 2026Review
- Preliminary clinical observation on the treatment of adenomyosis by partial embolization of uterine artery with novel material combination: a case series.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of uterine artery embolization in different Kishi classification types of adenomyosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Uterine Artery Embolization as an Alternative Therapeutic Option in Adenomyosis: An Observational Retrospective Single-Center Study.Journal of clinical 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uterine adenomyosis, a common benign tumor disease in gynecology, mainly manifested as chronic pelvic pain, menstrual disorders, dysmenorrhea, etc., has a great impact on patients' daily life and work. Compared with traditional surgery and drug therapy, uterine artery embolization (UAE), as a new treatment with less trauma, faster recovery and uterine preservation, can relieve pain while preserving normal physiological and reproductive functions of the uterus, which is favored by the majority of patients. In this study, the patients were divided into two groups based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test. Their serum CA125 level was detected, and the degree of symptom relief and health index were evaluated, aiming to explore the clinical efficacy and influencing factors of UAE in the treatment of adenomyosis. The results showed that before UAE, CA125 level in group B was significantly higher than that in group A, and 2 days after UAE, CA125 level in both groups was lower than before treatment, indicating that the serum CA125 level may be related to the type of adenomyosis, but UAE has a good therapeutic effect on both focal and diffuse adenomyosis. 3 months after interventional treatment, the patients had significantly reduced symptoms with dramatically improved health status and the VAS pain score was significantly reduced, indicating that UAE can significantly improve the clinical symptoms of patients with adenomyosis. Uterine artery embolization was performed in both groups. No serious complications occurred during the operation, and the technical success rate reached 100%. In summary, UAE, as a minimally invasive treatment, has obvious and significant clinical effects in the treatment of adenomyosis, and is an important alternative treatment for adenomyosis.
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.