ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2025
Agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in deep pelvic endometriosis.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDeep pelvic endometriosis is the most common cause of chronic pelvic pain and infertility. Guidelines proposed standardized approaches for the diagnosis of deep pelvic endometriosis with ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging; however, knowing the reasons for discrepancy is crucial. We aimed to analyze the agreement between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for deep pelvic endometriosis findings and provide potential pitfalls and reasons for discordant findings.
methodsThe study group consists of consecutive patients with deep pelvic endometriosis diagnosed on pelvic (n=1) or transvaginal ultrasonography (n=34) who underwent noncontrast pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. The agreement between the ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging was assessed using the prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa statistics. Potential pitfalls and reasons for discordant findings were presented.
resultsThe study group consisted of 35 patients with deep pelvic endometriosis. The mean age was 39.5±6.2 years. The most common site of involvement was the rectosigmoid colon (n=34, 97.1%), followed by endometrioma/hemorrhagic cyst (n=32, 91.4%). There was a perfect agreement for endometrioma/hemorrhagic cyst (100%), almost perfect agreement for bladder involvement (PABAK=0.886), and moderate agreement for other sites. The number of uterosacral ligament involvement was lower with ultrasonography than with magnetic resonance imaging. However, due to the impact of gas signals on magnetic resonance imaging imaging, the number and boundaries of rectosigmoid deep pelvic endometriosis were better defined with ultrasonography.
conclusionThe agreement between ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for deep pelvic endometriosis findings varies according to the sites of involvement. Ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging are not standalone diagnostic techniques but are complementary to each other. We provided potential diagnostic pitfalls.
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.