ArticleGynecologic oncology2025
Ultrasound-based versus immediate biopsy-based management of postmenopausal bleeding in non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White individuals.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2025. 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.
- Examining the Associations of Altered Metabolism in Black Women with Endometrial Cancer.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUltrasound-based evaluation of endometrial thickness to rule out endometrial cancer in patients with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB) is not sufficiently validated in the non-Hispanic Black (NHB) population. Differences in ultrasound performance between NHB and non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients may contribute to documented disparities in cancer-associated survival.
methodsWe developed a decision-tree model, informed by literature and institutional data, comparing an immediate biopsy-based strategy (BBS) to an ultrasound-based strategy (UBS) to evaluate PMB in NHB and NHW patients. Primary outcomes were the probability of a missed cancer diagnosis and incremental biopsies per additional cancer detected. Fibroid prevalence, endometrial visibility, and race were modeled using institutional patient-level data. Prompt endometrial sampling following abnormal ultrasound (perfect follow-up) was assumed; institutionally observed follow-up rates were alternatively modeled.
resultsIn a simulated cohort of 10,000 patients with PMB, UBS missed 109 (95 % prediction interval (PI) 85-159) cancer diagnoses compared to 70 missed for BBS. Compared to UBS, BBS resulted in 123 (95 % PI 45-265) biopsies/additional cancer detected for NHB and 155 (95 % PI 47-398) for NHW. Under observed follow-up rates, BBS resulted in 33 (95 % PI 26-38) biopsies/additional cancer detected for NHB and 44 (95 % PI 30-54) for NHW. NHB derived higher value (fewer biopsies/additional cancer detected) from BBS than NHW, particularly with fibroids present.
conclusionBBS has higher value compared to UBS under observed/imperfect levels of follow-up and enhanced value when fibroids are present and among NHB patients. These results suggest that endometrial sampling should be offered at time of initial evaluation for PMB.
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.