ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2025
Efficacy of Transvaginal Ultrasound vs Pelvic MRI in Preoperative Diagnosis of Pelvic Endometriosis.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Experts and experience in the medical profession are required for diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic parameters of transvaginal ultrasound versus pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to diagnose pelvic endometriosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS Our analysis included results of pelvic examinations, pelvic MRI scans, transvaginal ultrasound scans, and laparoscopy and histopathologic evaluation of 144 women who had positive examination results for pelvic endometriosis. RESULTS Transvaginal ultrasound scans had inferior diagnostic parameters and a higher clinical risk of missing pelvic endometriosis than pelvic MRI examinations for pelvic endometriosis. True-positive (45 [83%] vs 47 [86%], P=0.7873), false-positive (4 [7%] vs 2 [4%], P=0.6785), true-negative (3 [6%] vs 3 [6%]), false-negative (2 [4%] vs 2 [4%]), sensitivity (96% vs 96%), and clinical benefits (0-0.92 vs 0-0.921 diagnostic confidence that had beneficial scores to detect biomarker signs in working areas) were identical for the transvaginal ultrasound and the pelvic MRI examinations for hypoechoic solids and/or cysts. Diagnostic parameters and clinical benefits (0-0.75 vs 0-0.918 diagnostic confidence that had beneficial scores to detect biomarker signs in working areas) were inferior to those of transvaginal ultrasound compared to pelvic MRI examinations for uterine enlargement and asymmetry. CONCLUSIONS Transvaginal ultrasound has limited clinical applications compared to pelvic MRI examinations to diagnosis pelvic endometriosis. Except for uterine size and shape, transvaginal ultrasound examinations have sufficient diagnostic parameters to detect pelvic endometriosis in women with clinical manifestations.
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.