SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting rectosigmoid deep infiltrating endometriosis: a comparative meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Safety of Elagolix Versus Dienogest for Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Endometriosis Pain: A Phase III, Multicentric, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Non-Inferiority Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Trial
- Optimizing endometriosis detection: a review of technical approaches and interpretative pitfalls.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
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
Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic efficacy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of rectosigmoid deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). Methods: A thorough systematic review was performed by searching the PubMed and Embase databases for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of TVS and MRI in rectosigmoid DIE, up until August 12, 2024. The DerSimonian and Laird approach was utilized to calculate sensitivity and specificity, with the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation employed for data analysis. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Results: The meta-analysis encompassed 10 studies involving 1,604 patients. The findings revealed that TVS had an overall sensitivity of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76-0.92) and specificity of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85-0.98), while MRI demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.73-0.92) and specificity of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.90-0.99). Statistical analysis indicated no significant differences in sensitivity ( Conclusion: The meta-analysis reveals nearly equivalent diagnostic performance of TVS and MRI in detecting rectosigmoid DIE, with no statistical differences in sensitivity and specificity. However, high heterogeneity among studies highlights the need for further prospective research. Systematic review registration: The protocol for this meta-analysis has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the ID: CRD42024559141, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024559141.
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.