ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Outlier data in volume calculations of uterine fibroids comparing ellipsoid formula and voxel-based segmentation.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ellipsoidal formula is the most common method used to determine the volume of fibroids on MR images. Labor-intensive manual segmentation provides the opportunity to measure the volume of a given lesion on a voxel basis. The aim of this study is to compare the volume of the uterine fibroid calculated using voxel-based segmentation and the ellipsoid formula.
methodsIn this study, pretreatment MRI scans of patients who underwent uterine artery embolization due to symptomatic fibroids were retrospectively collected between 2016 and 2022. The volume data of the largest fibroids was determined by segmentation (group S) as the reference standard. In addition, the largest diameters of the fibroids in three planes (D1/D2/D3) were also measured and the volumes were also estimated by using the ellipsoidal formula (D1*D2*D3*0.5233) (group E). The interobserver reproducibility of the diameter measurements was tested. The volume values (median, IQR) were compared; in addition, the differences between the segmented and ellipsoidal volumes were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon's two-sided signed rank test, intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis, and Bland-Altman plots.
resultsPretreatment MRI scans of 113 patients were identified. Fibroids where the interobserver difference of diameter-based ellipsoidal volumes reached 30% were excluded resulting in 99 patients in the final dataset. The volumes of group S and group E showed no significant differences with 134.1 (257.3) cm
conclusionsThe ellipsoid formula-based and the voxel-based volume calculation showed no significant difference for the group as a whole. However, there was a difference of > 20% in 21.2% of cases and > 30% in 10.1% of cases. In the era of personalized medicine, it is not only the average difference between the two methods that need to be considered but also cases where there is a 20% or 30% difference in results should be highlighted, as these may change the treatment plan in individual cases. This methodology should also be tested for other tumor-type volume calculations.
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.