ArticleBMC women's health2025
Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in endometrial lesions.
Article in BMC women's health, 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.
- Preliminary quantitative and qualitative evaluation of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in normal proliferative endometrium of infertile patients.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundTo quantitatively analyse the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) parameters of endometrial lesions and explore the differences in CEUS parameters between benign and malignant endometrial lesions.
methodsThe study enrolled 316 patients who were diagnosed with endometrial lesions and confirmed with histopathology. All patients underwent 2D ultrasonography and CEUS with SonoVue before surgery. There were fifteen imaging parameters were included in this study.
resultsA total of 236 patients were included in this study, with 204 and 32 patients having benign lesions and malignant lesions, respectively. The malignant lesion group had a higher intensity ratio of maximum echo (Imax), 50% rise slope, and 10%-90% rising slope; lower 50% fall slope; shorter time to peak (TTP), rise time (RT), fall time, fall half time, and mean transit time; and larger area under the curve, area under the wash-in curve (WinAUC), area under the wash-out curve, and area under the wash-in and wash-out curve than the benign lesion group. The logistic regression showed that Imax, TTP, wash-in rate (WinR = WinAUC / RT), and age were related to the diagnosis of benign and malignant endometrial lesions. The following logistic regression model was then obtained: In(benign/malignant) = -4.645 + 0.007Imax-0.549ttp + 0.119age + 0.002WinR. The sensitivity and specificity of the model were 93.8% and 92.2%, respectively.
conclusionCEUS can provide both qualitative and quantitative information on endometrial angiogenesis and provide a new method for the preoperative differentiation of benign and malignant endometrial lesions.
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.