ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Optimizing endometriosis detection: a review of technical approaches and interpretative pitfalls.
Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. 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.
- Endometriosis: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Molecular Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Management.MedComm · 2026Review
- Thoracic Endometriosis and Catamenial Pneumothorax: Imaging Pitfalls and an Integrated Diagnostic Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endometriosis, affecting approximately 10% of reproductive-age women, presents significant diagnostic challenges due to its variable clinical presentation and anatomic distributions. Despite advances in imaging technology, accurate detection and characterization of endometriotic lesions remain complex, with diagnostic delays averaging 7-12 years from symptom onset. This review analyzes the spectrum of imaging strengths and potential pitfalls across imaging modalities used to assess endometriosis focusing on technical factors and anatomic blind spots that can impact diagnostic accuracy and clinical management. Strengths of ultrasound include dynamic capabilities and real-time assessment with patient feedback, though it requires experienced operators and standardized protocols. MRI offers comprehensive evaluation with excellent soft tissue contrast and multiplanar capabilities but faces challenges with static imaging and artifact interference. CT, while limited by radiation exposure and intermediate contrast resolution, shows promise in specific scenarios, particularly evaluation of endometriosis deposits on the bowel. This review details optimal patient preparation strategies, including the role of vaginal and rectal gel opacification, bowel preparation, and contrast administration. Special attention is given to challenging anatomic areas including thoracic, gastrointestinal, abdominal wall, urinary tract and neurovascular involvement. The manuscript emphasizes the importance of standardized reporting templates for communication of findings to facilitate surgical planning. A multidisciplinary approach to imaging patients with known deep invasive endometriosis helps ensure the best modality is chosen for the clinical question at hand.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40576666What 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.