SynthesisAnnals of medicine2025
Accuracy of multimodal vaginal ultrasound in the detection and assessment of scar healing after caesarean section: a correlational meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 2025. 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.
- Combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy for the treatment of a particular cesarean scar diverticulum disguised as a cervical mass: a case report.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Heterotopic Cesarean Scar Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Diagnosis, Management and Prognosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of multimodal vaginal ultrasound in assessing post-caesarean scar healing.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on Chinese and English studies using multimodal vaginal ultrasound to diagnose poor scar healing post-CS. Two researchers screened literature based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Quality assessment and meta-analysis (RevMan 5.4, Stata14.0, Meta-DiSc1.4) were performed for various diagnostic indicators.
resultsTwenty-five high-quality studies identified key ultrasound markers: hypoechoic/anechoic scars (sensitivity 92%, specificity 91%), thinning/discontinuity of the myotomy layer (sensitivity 95%, specificity 90%), blurred incision contour (sensitivity 99%, specificity 91%), absent blood flow (sensitivity 92%, specificity 91%), irregular lesion morphology (sensitivity 95%, specificity 90%), uneven myometrial echogenicity (sensitivity 94%, specificity 91%), lower uterine segment thickness ≤3.73 mm (sensitivity 90%, specificity 88%), and myometrial lining ≤1.5 mm (sensitivity 90%, specificity 92%).
conclusionMultimodal vaginal ultrasound is highly accurate in detecting poor CS scar healing, aiding early intervention to prevent complications.
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.