ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparing the efficacy of different methods in assessing cervical stromal invasion in endometrial carcinoma: a retrospective study of 2,020 patients.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Purpose: This study aimed to assess the preoperative diagnostic efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and endometrial biopsy for cervical stromal invasion (CSI) in endometrial carcinoma (EC) and to discuss the influencing factors of CSI. Material and methods: A total of 2,020 patients with EC were retrospectively analyzed in a tertiary hospital. Basic patient information, clinical pathology, and laboratory indicators were collected and analyzed. Using the postoperative pathological diagnosis as the gold standard, the diagnostic efficacies of different preoperative methods were analyzed. Additionally, influencing factors of CSI were examined by univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: The sensitivity (Sens.), specificity (Spec.), accuracy (Acc.), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), Youden's index, and Kappa value of the MRI vs. CT groups were 49.50% vs. 56.74%, 92.24% vs. 79.09%, 87.70% vs. 76.15%, 11.60 vs. 4.93, 0.42 vs. 0.36, and 0.392 vs. 0.256 ( Conclusions: MRI is relatively superior in assessing CSI, although diagnostic authenticity and consistency were unsatisfactory. Combining MRI and biopsy could improve diagnostic sensitivity, aiding in clinical decision making and prognostic prediction. Comprehensive consideration of high-risk factors for the occurrence of CSI may aid the diagnosis. Preoperative diagnostic methods of CSI in EC still need to be explored further to improve efficiency.
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.