Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40419582›Full record

Observational studyScientific reports2025

Ultrasonic prediction model using three-dimensional power doppler for endometrial cancer detection in women with postmenopausal bleeding.

Li Wang, Shimin Quan, Xiaofeng Yang

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Li WangDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, Shaanxi, China.
Shimin QuanDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, Shaanxi, China.
Xiaofeng YangDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061, Shaanxi, China. yxf73@163.com.

Funding

The China Maternal and Child Health Association Maternal and Child Health Research and Innovation Technology Project ZGFYBJXH-KY2104The grant from the Health Research Project of Shaanxi Province. No. 2018D054The Health Science and Technology Innovation Project of Shaanxi Province the Health Science and Technology Innovation Project of Shaanxi Province (No. 2024PT-11)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Distinguishing benign and malignant endometrial lesions on the basis of endometrial thickness (ET) may lead to a missed diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma (EC) in women with postmenopausal bleeding (PMB) or increased invasive examination and pain in women with benign endometrial lesions. Our research aims to establish an ultrasonic prediction model for differentiating between benign endometrial lesions and EC in women with PMB. PMB women with ET ≥ 5 mm (n = 412) or ET < 5 mm who presented with recurrent vaginal bleeding (n = 57) were enrolled in this prospective observational study. According to the pathological examination results of the endometrium, women with PMB were divided into endometrial atrophy (EA) (n = 231), endometrial polyp (EP) (n = 98), endometrial hyperplasia (EH) (n = 58) and EC (n = 82) groups. Ultrasonic parameters were compared among the four groups. The predictive value of different parameters for differentiation between benign endometrial lesions and EC in women with PMB was determined via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The best cut-off of ultrasonic parameters analyzed by ROC curves was used to establish prediction model. Women with EC had significantly thicker endometrium and higher endometrial volume (EV), vascularization index (VI), flow index (FI) and vascularization-flow index (VFI) than women with other pathological types of endometrium (P < 0.05). The endometrial VI, FI and VFI of women with EH were significantly higher compared with those in women with EA and EP (P < 0.05). For patients with ET ≥ 5 mm, the best parameter for distinguishing between benign lesions and EC was the FI, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86, a sensitivity of 86.7% and a specificity of 81.4%. In addition, for patients with ET < 5 mm, the best parameter for distinguishing between benign lesions and EC was the VI, with an AUC of 0.92, a sensitivity of 92.1% and a specificity of 72.9%. The ultrasonic prediction model based on the FI and VI had better predictive value for EC in both patients with ET ≥ 5 mm and patients with ET < 5 mm. The ultrasonic parameters differed among the different pathological types of the endometrium in women with PMB. The ultrasonic prediction model based on the endometrial FI and VI was clinically useful for differentiating between benign endometrial lesions and EC, especially in postmenopausal patients with recurrent vaginal bleeding presenting with ET of less than 5 mm.

Indexed as

Endometrial NeoplasmsPostmenopauseUltrasonography, DopplerUterine HemorrhageAgedDiagnosis, DifferentialEndometriumFemaleHumansMiddle AgedProspective StudiesROC CurveBenign endometrial lesionsEndometrial cancerPostmenopausal bleedingThree-dimensional power doppler ultrasoundUltrasonic prediction model

Identifiers

PMID40419582
PMCPMC12106688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.