Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40958947›Full record

ArticleRadiologia brasileira

Uterine cervical volume: comparison between two- and three-dimensional ultrasound methods at 20-24 weeks of gestation.

Renan Fonseca Cardozo, Fernando Maia Peixoto-Filho, Edward Araujo Júnior

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiologia brasileira. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Renan Fonseca CardozoDepartment of Fetal Medicine, Instituto Nacional de Saúde da Mulher, da Criança e do Adolescente Fernandes Figueira/Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (IFF/Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0009-0008-5972-0500
Fernando Maia Peixoto-FilhoDepartment of Fetal Medicine, Instituto Nacional de Saúde da Mulher, da Criança e do Adolescente Fernandes Figueira/Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (IFF/Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8521-6393
Edward Araujo JúniorDepartment of Obstetrics, Escola Paulista de Medicina da Universidade Federal de São Paulo (EPM-Unifesp), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-6145-2532

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement between and reproducibility of specific two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound methods in assessing cervical volume in pregnant women in their second trimester. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective cross-sectional study of 48 asymptomatic pregnant women at 20-24 weeks of gestation. All cervical volumes were determined by transvaginal ultrasound, with a 2D method employing a geometric formula {π * [(anteroposterior diameter + transverse diameter) * ¼] * length}, where π = 3.14, and a 3D method employing a virtual organ computer-aided analysis. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability was analyzed by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The mean maternal age and timing of the ultrasound examination were 26 ± 6 years and 21 ± 1 weeks of gestation, respectively. The mean cervical volumes measured by the 2D and 3D ultrasound methods were 27.71 ± 9.27 cm Conclusion: Cervical volume measurements obtained with 2D and 3D ultrasound methods seem to show satisfactory agreement and good intraobserver reliability. In our study sample, the 2D ultrasound method showed low interobserver reliability, whereas the 3D ultrasound method was more reliable, with good intraobserver and interobserver reliability.

Indexed as

Cervical length measurementCervix uteri/embryologyPregnancyPregnancy trimester, secondReproducibility of resultsUltrasonography, prenatal/methods

Identifiers

PMID40958947
PMCPMC12435928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.